Harrowing letter explodes the family law debate

Eric says:

07:25am | 20/10/09

This campaign is yet another attempt by feminists to demonise and marginalise men. Using emotional anecdotes about rare cases of abuse to tar a whole group is par for the course.

Statistically, children are just as likely to be physically abused by mothers as by fathers. There is no reason not to support shared custody as the default.

It’s interesting how feminists demand equality whenever women are disadvantaged by outcomes—but they are opposed to equality whenever it helps men.

Lexi says:

07:59am | 20/10/09

Great insight, Tracey - a chilling and depressing account but one that needs to be heard.

@Eric: This grandfather’s letter never once suggests that fathers or men are always the perpetrators - he’s asking that instead of defaulting to shared custody because one parent (mother or father) has more resources than the other, that the court system is set up to provide equitable access for parents and children, regardless of financial ability. 

He wants children to authentically have a voice - not just use short appointments with stranger psychologists to judge the children.

How is any of this an agenda against men?  As I’ve said to you before, I am sorry that you are obviously hurt.  I don’t know what happened, but I seriously think you need to seek help, because you come across as a very angry, very sad individual. 

Eric, and anyone else feeling sad, lonely, angry or hopeless, should start by visiting http://www.beyondblue.org.au or call beyondblue on 1300 22 46 36

Richard says:

08:21am | 20/10/09

I guess my first reaction to this is"so what”?  Does the fact that several women have killed their children in recent years mean that the law should change to take children away from their mothers more often?  The thing to bear in m ind here is the old legal adage: “Hard cases make bad law”.  This means that it is a bad idea to make laws on the basis of a single or a few bad cases, because this will do injustice to the majority.  Let’s look at a few facts here.  Statistics show that the hierachy of people who pose a danger to children’s safety after divorce or separation is as follows.
First by a long way is the mother’s new boyfriend or partner, second is, believe it or not, the mother herself, and third, a fairly long way back, is the natural father.  This shows that the campaign against the shared parenting laws is simply a case of women pursuing their own totally selfish interests under the guise of protecting children.  It is a sickeningly dishonest exercise in crass self-interest, which has nothing whatever to do with the welfare of children, which is clearly advanced in the vast majority of cases by them having a close relationship with their father.  Anyone who has worked in the family law area, as I have, will tell you, if they’re being honest, about the vicious vindictiveness and unreasoning hatred that many women habour towards their exes, and the extraordinary lengths to which many of them will go to harm them, including using ther children as weapons.  This campaign is simply part of that phenomenon.

Eric says:

08:21am | 20/10/09

Lexi, the fact is that the Family Court has a long history of bias against men. Feminists want it to stay that way, and that’s why they’re against shared custody.

No matter how harrowing the unproven claims in one letter, it is still just an anecdote. The reality for the great majority of people is otherwise. Nevertheless, many anecdotes of the same kind, repeatedly pushed by feminists in the media, create a false impression of fathers as abusers—and this is a deliberate feminist tactic.

Your attempts to attack me personally are another example of such smear tactics. Instead of responding with counter-arguments, you spew insults in a guise of false concern. I doubt you’re fooling anyone.

Kel says:

08:48am | 20/10/09

Well said Lexi! And, great story Tracey.
Meanwhile, I do hope Eric gets the help he needs, whatever happened to him, must have been pretty damaging.
There are horrific tales child abuse throughout our community. I watched a friend suffer an emotional breakdown after working for DOCS, horiffied by what he saw on a daily basis.
I really don’t care about these petty, absolutely ridiculous gender wars. Eric, as always, misses the point of what’s really at stake.
I really only care about the welfare of the child in each individual situation.

Tim says:

08:57am | 20/10/09

This letter is extremely sad and another case in a long line of known, and unknown, cases of broken families.

The laws have to change - but to what? How exactly can we change it so is basically “fair” to everyone including the children? These are situations which are HIGHLY charged with emotional energy, so highly charged that I dont think we’ll ever get it right….and this is only for cases where there is clearly proven instances of domestic violence or sexual abuse.

What about those children who are exposed to verbal or emotional abuse from a parent? The child who is yelled at in the worst possible way, and then in the next minute told that “Dad didnt mean to say that, your Mum makes me”, or the mother who says to the child “your father is a complete loser and I hate him, and you should to”, or the father who encourages his 6 year old son to call his mother “a b#$ch” to her face…and the child does it (yes, I have seen this). THESE children have even less of a voice in today’s society.

Its called “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS) but of course, its one of things that everyone knows is happening, but since its extremely hard to prove (in a court of law) due to the insidious nature of how it works, so the law ignores it.

And yes….BOTH parents are capable of it

julia says:

09:00am | 20/10/09

Eric: there are some women who use the system ruthlessly. But I don’t think this letter is fiction.

Having worked for Federal MPs, I’ve had to console men who are ruined because of what some women do. One fellow cried his heart out in the public waiting room, because he’d been accused of some heinous crimes and denied access to his children.

So, Eric. This feminist sees both sides and thinks the men’s movement needs to consider that not all fathers are good, decent men wanting contact with their children.

Tony says:

09:01am | 20/10/09

The problem with tying shared custody to csa payments is that too many women are preventing father’s from spending time with their children in order to keep their payments high.

Eric says:

09:04am | 20/10/09

Kel, if you “really only care about the welfare of the child in each individual situation”, then you must be against abortion.

Anyone who supports abortion, yet claim to put the welfare of children first, is hypocrite.

Feminist Family never been about the children—it’s always been about taking away from men and giving to women.

Just follow the money—it flows from the male to the female. Yet the custodial parent—almost always the women—is never required to account for how the father’s money was spent on the child.

Lawyers and feminists and politicians profit from the misery of children and fathers.

Lexi says:

09:11am | 20/10/09

There’s no “false” concern, Eric.  Despite whatever experiences you’ve been through, it’s not normal to believe all women are out to get you.  We’re not.  I don’t want you feeling so angry because it’s not a nice way to live.  I don’t for one second believe I have all the answers, but just talking to someone may help you feel happier.  Ask to speak to a bloke if it makes you feel more comfortable.

There’s no attack either.  You ask me to provide “counter-arguments”, but to what? You don’t provide the statistics you rely on (“Statistically, children are just as likely to be physically abused by mothers as by fathers”).  You have no evidence for the claims you’ve made (“the Family Court has a long history of bias against men”) nor for the stereotypes you exploit (“This campaign is yet another attempt by feminists to demonise and marginalise men”).

Most of us out here don’t want to see any child suffer by shared custody arrangements - whether the abusive parent is male or female.  If there is evidence that shared custody is in the best interests of all involved, that’s wonderful.

That is what Tracey’s article is about.  It takes a damaged and mentally-ill parent to abuse a child.  Mental illness, emotional scars and similar problems do not discriminate gender.

John says:

09:29am | 20/10/09

I was disturbed by the heading of this piece”:Harrowing letter explodes the family law debate” This event was a terrible tragedy and to extrapolate this into gererality is dishonest. Almost every comment in this area purports to have only the interest of the child at heart. The content then discloses that this is not the case. The shared parenting arrangement has been under fire since the balance of power has changed politically. Sadly, .change will come and the cause of the children will not be served.

Ken says:

09:36am | 20/10/09

Tim you havent done your homework. There is no such thing as Parent Alienation Syndrome. It was the idea of an American psychiatrist (Richard Gardner) which was adopted by the Family Court of Australia despite the fact that this man was self-published and his theory had no scientific credibility. He stated that mothers suffering from the syndrome ( a mental illness) imgaine and brain wash children to believe that they’ve been sexually abused when they havent. He was discredited by American psychological and psychaitric associations but the FCA seems to have rushed in to use this as the answer to all the allegations of child abuse that were coming to their courts. Gardner’s writings showed that he sympathised with paedophiles and PAS certainly enabled them to gain custody of their victims. Mothers were usually given occasion, supervised contact leaving victims psychologically orphaned. This happened so often that as they grew older, victims formed an internet support group (Courgaous Kids). Although PAS is supposedly banned in the FCA, the concept is still being used, albeit with different nomenclature. In the meantime, Gardner hacked himself to death, allegedly in a drug induced frenzy.
Someone should be enquiring HOW and WHY this theory came to be adopted given that it was presented by one Gardner fan at a FCA conference. How many children have suffered as a result?
Yes, some parents do alienate children from their other parents. But dont confuse that with PAS!

BT says:

10:10am | 20/10/09

@Richard, your perception (as opposed to actual statistical evidence) is incorrect. It is usually the childs father (not stepfather or mothers partner) who perpetrates child abuse, the most common form of which is through alcohol fuelled violence. The women who stay with these men must choose between being among the most long term impoverished in society (single mothers) or being the victim of domestic violence and maintaining some degree of adequate access to income support (if possible) and housing.
@ Eric, no woman in their right mind wants to be a single mother, it’s a sure path to poverty. In fact feminists are against all forms of violence and inequality - and believe it or not that includes inequality to men. Men are consistantly ignorant of the fact that the feminist movement actually encourages men to take a more active role in caring for their children and for this to occur women need to be given equal opportunity in the workplace.
Essentially the letter in the article is correct - child protection in Australia is woeful at best and is governed by a system that perpetuates rather than reduces child abuse.

Eric says:

10:16am | 20/10/09

Lexi, you appear to be suffering from the delusion that “feminists” is the same thing as “all women”.

I suggest you read what I actually wrote, not what your prejudices assume I’ve written.

Julia, I’ve never said that all fathers are good, or that all mothers are bad. I do, however, object to the false portrayal of men as abusers that is at the heart of the feminist agenda, and shows itself so strongly in this article.

The reaction from some commenters is interesting: they seek to project bogus psychological issues on me in order to delegitimise my concerns. This is a typical feminist tactic, related to the big picture in which men in general are demonised.

ihmn says:

10:20am | 20/10/09

Your abortion argument is crap Eric. A foetus is not a viable organism outside of a female carrier, it is the woman whose welfare and choice is being considered, because she is the viable organism. To say that anyone who chooses not to carry an unwanted pregnancy is akin to someone who doesn’t accept child abuse in society is simply ridiculous. You are continually telling us all about the horrible women in society who are abusing their children much more than men, because men are so cruelly oppressed and defamed. Perhaps these women decided to carry to term an unwanted pregnancy because of anti-choice propaganda and as a result neglected the children?

And you have said in previous threads that you do not think men should be forced to pay child support for an unplanned pregnancy, but don’t believe in abortion?

How can you defame all who disagree with you as sexist, when you display such outright misogyny yourself?

Paul Horn says:

10:36am | 20/10/09

Obviously an extremely one sided attempt to discredit the shared parenting laws. Before you print this kind of stuff Tracey perhaps you should investigate the other side of the story and present their case as any “unbiased” journalist would do! But I guess that is extremely uncommon in todays “women friendly’ sensationalist media environment. 

Your article is simply hearsay and nothing more. Look at the other side and the many tens of thousands of children who have benefitted from contact with their custodial parent generally the father. In the US states that encourage shared parenting programs have shown a 400% decline in diovorce rates than those states that favour sole custody! The report is here http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/library/spca/docs/Child Custody and Divorce Rates.pdfevidence.

So why no feminists advocating for this policy Lexi? So please explain if shared parenting can reduce the “burden’ of the primary carer most likely a woman and free her to pursue employment opportunities then why aren’t feminist groups in support of the scheme? I mean they oppose any taxation laws that supposedly encourage happily married women to remain at home then why aren’t they siding with fathers groups in supporting this program?

Oh I forgot women are only oppressed and downtrodden when they are economically dependent on a male they have a relationship with! Providing that male is out of the picture or the Government is supporting the family that is more than OK with hypocritical femninist groups.

Germaine Greer said it all Lexi when she stated that the greatest achievements of feminism were 1. Women being able to destroy marriages and 2. There has never been more hatred between the sexes than at any other time in history! Says it all does’nt it!

DG says:

10:40am | 20/10/09

Eric (10:04am | 20/10/09)

I think that you make a good point about the custodial parent being called to account for the expenditure of child support payments. Perhaps this would be a step in the right direction. it is indeed an interesting point to consider.

As to the remainder of your post.

Beginning with an irrelevant conclusion (If A then B - where B relies on various other assumptions). (You assume that a foetus is a child, and assume that the rights of a foetus outweigh the rights of a person to control their own body)

And then add a nice little ‘ad hominem’ (poisoned well) argument of your own “You are a hypocrite, so we don’t have to listen to you”.

I do have a question about your post:

How does you argument deal with lawyers and judges that are also fathers? Are they profiting from their own misery? There seems to be little in the way of causation between between “Some Lawyers and judges profit from family law” and “some children and fathers are miserable as a result of their interaction with Family law*”. Your suggestion that they derive profit from the misery is unfounded, the profit would be derived whether or not there was any misery. Similarly, it can be expected that the misery would arise whether or not there was any profit to be made (i.e if there was no lawyers involved, the judge was working for free -and determined that the mother was to get sole custody, the “misery” would still arise).

I’m not suggesting that the system is perfect - but the arguments proposed do little in the way of showing the true problems. They so little more than muddy the waters and further agitate matters in a highly emotional environment. Your arguments certainly did not confirm a conspiracy against fathers. 

* while technically a logical fallacy since I can’t prove causation, I think that the parties will agree that some fathers are miserable as a result of the outcome of such proceedings - and would not be as miserable if the outcome of the proceedings were in their favour).

Seriously.....? says:

10:59am | 20/10/09

Why is it that, on this forum, irrelevant topics are constantly dragged into discussion? Get over the abortion debate. You’re either pro-choice or not. In my opinion,  focusing on the children who are already living, breathing - outside the womb – and in particular, those who must live in fear – are more important. The issue at hand isn’t about feminism; it’s about protecting children, it wouldn’t make any difference if the perpetrator of such abuse were female or male, something still needs to be done to ensure the rights of a child are protected. Surely this isn’t being debated? No child should have to withstand abuse because their testimony is questioned due to their age. The ‘victim card’ is not appealing, particularly when it takes the spotlight away from one of the real issues, the lack of accurate representation for children in/by family law. It’s also a little disturbing that after such an emotive letter is posted by Tracey, written by an obviously stressed grandfather, that responses waste net space discussing statistics- albeit with no reference to sources, and appear to have an apparent disregard for the abused children.

Richard says:

11:03am | 20/10/09

Sorry, BT, but you are simply wrong.  Published statistics about violence against children clearly show that they are most in danger, by a substantial margin, from the mother’s new male companion.  Next is the mother herself, and then comes the father, a fairly long way back.  These facts are often simply suppressed and seem to make no difference to the debate.  To those who pursue the campaign to return Family Law to the way it used to be before the introduction of shared parenting, when access by the father and enforcing it was just about at the bottom of the priority list, well below the interests of the mother(not the children, you’ll note), these are just inconvenient facts to be shoved under the carpet and ignored.  Where is the outcry for changes to Family Law when mothers kill their children, as has been the case in several instances recently?  Why is it only when a father perpetrates some attrocity against his children that we hear this outcry?  Could it be that the issue is being pursued by groups whose real interest is in continuing to prosecute the war against men, using the alleged interests of children as just another weapon in the campaign?

James says:

11:05am | 20/10/09

The extremist “father’s rights” group are not interested in equality or the safety of children. These so- called “fathers’ rights” groups are a disgrace and an insult to the many decent men’s advocates out their trying to negotiated their way through a separation that treat their children with the utmost care and respect. They have no compunction about lying about statistics and situations.  It is about trying to re-establish dominance and control over the mothers trying to escape and if that happens to be fully backing and advising abusive men so be it.

First, these groups tell the lie that women routinely make false accusations of child abuse to gain advantage in family law proceedings and to arbitrarily deny their ex-partners’ access to the children.

Second, these so- called “fathers’ rights” groups tell the lie that women routinely make up allegations of domestic violence to gain advantage in family law cases and use protection orders to remove men from their homes or deny contact with children rather than out of any real experience or fear of violence.

Related to this, the fathers’ rights movement also has had some impact on public perceptions of intimate violence. In particular, it tells the lie that domestic violence is gender-equal or gender-neutral – that men and women assault each other at equal rates and with equal effects.

Related to this, the fathers’ rights movement also has had some impact on public perceptions of intimate violence. In particular, it tells the lie that domestic violence is gender-equal or gender-neutral – that men and women assault each other at equal rates and with equal effects.

There is no doubt that a small number of men are the victims of domestic violence. Men experience domestic violence at the hands of female and male sexual partners, ex-partners, and other family members.

Research tells us that there are important contrasts in women’s and men’s experiences of domestic violence. Women are far more likely than men to be subjected to frequent, prolonged, and extreme violence, to sustain injuries, to fear for their lives, and to be sexually assaulted. Men subjected to domestic violence by women rarely experience post-separation violence and have more financial and social independence.

Tim says:

11:10am | 20/10/09

@Ken: Ok, point taken about the validity of “PAS” but whatever the name/label that is applied to this behaviour, it is out there (I am seeing it firsthand) and it seems that the Law, and Society to a lesser degree, have decided there isn’t SOMETHING happening, and parents (and/or family members) who have geniune concerns have NO legal recourse to stop the behaviour towards their child.

Paul Horn says:

11:13am | 20/10/09

BT I don’t know what trendy drug adled planet you reside on! But I will smash your insane arguments right out of the water. My cousin is a female alcoholic! She walked out of her marriage because her husband was working too many hours and she considered him “boring”! Her daughter was constantly abused by her verbally and at times physically. Her now ex husband was told by his lawyer he had no hope of gaining custody despite how sub standard and dangerous the mother was! This was during the 80’s a time when single motherhood exploded due to very generous welfare provisions provided by Labour Governments! She now enjoys a full disability pension paid for by idiots like me! My aunty was another case in point as she decided to run off with another guy leaving a bewildered and confused husband to care for 4 children. At least he got access to his kids. A mate of mine was visited some time ago by his ex with her daughter in tow. When they were together she got pregnant, told him it was to someone else and then walked out! He believed her - IDIOT! 10 years later she tracks him down, turns up at his doorstep and announces the little girl she bore all that time ago was actually his daughter and she wants to get to know daddy. In fact mummy disgusts her because her five siblings have all been born to different daddys!!! And all paid for by taxpaying idiots and she is one of the millions of single mothers!  YIPPEE!! Oh the great advantages of the liberal feminist agenda. Screw the kids but!

I could go on and on and on with similar stories BT that would curl your well manicured toes but you probably wouldn’t believe the truth if it knocked on your door. There are just a few examples of shared custody that would have wrought wonders for the children, saved them significant mental health issues and made them a damned site more well adjusted. Why don’t the womens groups site these examples as there are millions of them that could be printed but never see the light of day. An example of unbiased feminism - don’t think so! Get rid of no fault divorce and easy welfare benefits and you would have a much happier, better adjusted population of children! 

Thank You Tracy for letting me contribute and dispelling so many feminist lies!

mog says:

11:27am | 20/10/09

Thanks for again exposing the harm to children being perpetrated by a family law system which (a) was never established as a child protection system but deals daily with child protection issues (b) is a civil adversarial process which has no inquisitorial capacity to investigate or monitor children’s lived experiences of abuse (c) routinely excludes evidence of child abuse (d) pushes protective parents to agree to unsafe arrangements then blames them when disaster occurs (eg Justice Bryant on Freeman case) (e) takes no individual account of children’s developmental, health and safety needs (f) has been instructed by the High Court (M v M 1988)  to avoid making findings of criminal child abuse. State child protection and criminal justice systems don’t prosecute in most cases of pre-school aged incest victims because young children are not accepted as witnesses in crimnal courts. When a young child’s statements are denied by the accused, any charges are usually dropped, unless there is corroborating evidence.  Given that sexual abuse of children commonly occurs in private and that children commonly disclose after the abuse has stopped, most reported cases of incestuous child sexual abuse of young children are never prosecuted. In the family law system this means there is no basis to make a finding of child sexual abuse, so the laws will produce an outcome of shared time with the perpetrator despite the child’s distress and the distress of protective family members. It is a big problem for children of abusive parents.

Tim says:

12:15pm | 20/10/09

Here are a few stats on the perpetrators of child abuse.
http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs7/rs7.html

I don’t think Tracey could be less objective in this article if she tried. Publishing a one-sided hearsay letter from someone with a vested interest. Great Journalism.

KW says:

12:20pm | 20/10/09

THANK YOU James.
Very refreshing, well thought out point of view. If only more people posting here could take those things into account!!

Amos Keeto says:

12:29pm | 20/10/09

I sympathise with the grandfather but question his claim that the kids only met with a psychologist once, certainly wasn’t the case when we went though this. The psychologist/s (two reports) met with us several times, with adults present and at other times just the kids, they also visited us in the home to observe daily life several times and had us undertake quite extensive psychological testing before completing their report/s. Maybe things have changed, or maybe they need a better lawyer.

Vanessa says:

12:41pm | 20/10/09

this whole area is so ugly and so awful and it’s one I never thought I’d experience. However, my marriage then broke up and I found out first hand how terrifying it could be. I was considered one of the ‘guinea pigs’ under the new laws. Like the woman in this letter, my ex was a prominent media identity. My experience of the legal system is that it’s clumsy and brutal and the children are the ones who suffer. It’s been over three years since I went through all this, but the effects are still with me. I am delighted these laws are being changed…

BT says:

12:49pm | 20/10/09

@Paul Horn,
If I may interrupt your hysteria and “smashing of arguements” for a moment , I said it was “usually” the male who perpetrated violence and child abuse, not exclusively. Of course there are examples of women who abuse their children. I would just also ask you Paul if you yourself have ever been on welfare? It is hardly a lifestyle choice - you are exceptionally lucky if it pays your rent. There obviously is something drastically wrong with someone who chooses that life on a long term basis.

Zeta says:

12:56pm | 20/10/09

@ ‘The Men’s Rights’ movement:

I’ll preface this by saying I don’t beleive in Men’s Rights as the men’s well being advocates capitalise it. I should also preface this by acknowledging that I am a man as well; since my nom de guerre is androgynous.

Men have been the dominant force in humanitiy’s affairs for some 75,000 years. Archaelogically, we know that before then, early homo sapiens shared the hunting / gathering duties to a greater extent, and that physiological differences between genders were less pronounced. It was around that period, 75,000 years ago, possibly as a result of volcanic activity that humanity was reduced to around 1000 mating pairs, and the reproductive perogative forced men to take a more active role as protector and primary food gatherer whilst our dwindling numbers of women churned out baby after inbred baby that over time, fast tracked our evolution to the hairless, shoe wearing, war waging evolutionary throwbacks we are today.

Male aggression, our propensity toward violence, and increased physical bulk were a direct evolutionary reaction to an environmental problem. We won the battle against our environment too. There were less humans in the wake of Topa Catastrophe than there are Pandas today, but unlike those lazy good for nothing bamboo crunching lay abouts, we saved the species, built pyramids, invented reality television and conquered the world.

Men, we had a great run of things. We started by creating language and cultures which immediately emphasised women as weaker, as the submissive, and the outsider. Then when that wasn’t enough we created religions that made their place in the cosmos only a step above the cattle we had just started domesticating. But if you thought things were awesome in the neolithic period, when male strength was emphasised at the communal level, as cheiftains, leaders and fathers, it was about to get a whole lot more hectic win as soon as there were enough men to start having wars.

It was war where man really shined. Because once the cycle of organised violence started, not only couldn’t we stop, but it just solidified our status as the apex predator on planet earth. So alpha, that we had to start hunting each other because there were no wooly mammoths left. But being a man was about to get even better, once we started institutionalising our local, communal power bases into cities, kingdoms, empires, where… you guessed it, men were the top dogs. Let me hear you bark at the moon boys. We’d made it.

75,000 years we oppressed our sisters. Built human civilisation with our big, manly hands.

And you weaklings actually beleive a few bra burners in the ‘60s dismantled that? That we’re now the unwitting victims of a feminist conspiracy to bring us down? Men, who conquered and reconquered every continent several times over, even showed our superiority to the atmosphere by putting men on the moon (men).... You think Germaine Greer did this? Seriously? And what weapon would they use to bring down the monolithic structures of male domination….? The Family Court?!?!

You’re mad.

Far more likely, is that men allowed a perception that women are their equals. One that you’ve bought and run with. But it’s false. Patently false. Men still run the world, we still wage wars, we still create bureaucratic structures that keep women in their baby making place. We’re just smarter about it. Our new kings, our CEOs and Presidents are all men. Those few women who we let make it to the top, we force to act like men to maintain power. 

So where does that leave the Men’s Rights Movement? In a pickle. Because if men still run the world, what does that say about those men who can’t run their own lives? In a world where men are still the top dogs, if you’re not, maybe… you’re less of a man. And that stings. So you lash out at strong women, at women who manipulate the systems that are aligned against them. Stupid men can go through the Family Court process and come out the otherside unscathed, but stupid women can’t. You have to be smart, and have a lot of willpower to keep your kids if you really want them in the face of a system designed by men, for men.

And it is designed for men. It emphasises mothers over fathers, who have, for 75,000 years, been the primary care givers of children.

Real men move on. Accept our place in the universe. We don’t let women tell us how to invade countries, and we don’t tell them how to raise children.

The Men’s Rights movement belongs on the Fringe with Lyndon LaRouche’s New Breton Woods economic model, Satanic Ritual Abuse conspiracies and people who beleive Michael Jackson is still alive.

Amos Keeto says:

01:13pm | 20/10/09

@Zeta

That was excellent

BT says:

01:19pm | 20/10/09

I essentially agree with Zeta’s depressing structuralist arguement (and I seriously need a drink after reading that essay) I live in the hope though that men will, as I stated before, see the benefits of sharing power with women in that they will value and enjoy more time with their children and the responsibilities of caring for them one on one, and less time climbing the corporate ladder. This means that fathers, mothers and children will be better off.

Tim says:

01:21pm | 20/10/09

Wow Zeta,
I don’t know if you’re a crazy genius or just a lunatic.
Either way the nuthouse wants you back. And fast.

iansand says:

01:35pm | 20/10/09

No changes in the law will protect the children from psychotic parents.  No court order, family court or criminal, will protect the children from psychotic parents.  And last time I took any interest, over 95% of cases in the Family Court were resolved to everyone’s dissatisfaction without violence or abuse or even a contested hearing.  The people who get into major shitfights in the court are recalcitrant parents who are beyond rational persuasion.  Or even irrational persuasion.

MJ says:

02:12pm | 20/10/09

In 1994, when I was a very young married man, my then English wife jumped on a plane and took our 2 1/2 year old boy with her.  Granted, being that young I may have been a little naive, but there did not seem to be any support services around at that time to help me, but I did what I could afford to, and used what I could find but to no avail.  In fact, even though I had listed my son with Childwatch, a Chamber Magistrate seemed happy to point out to my (soon to be) ex wife that I had done so illegally.  It seemed that as we had no court orders in place, I was not able to list him and therefore she was free to go.  As a side note, we were meeting with the Chamber Magistrate to try and have an agreement drawn up that would allow her to leave for 1 year but commit to returning to Australia…he laughed at this too, pointing out that I could hardly enforce any agreement so it was pointless.  Needless to say my son was gone within 3 days of that meeting.

As for the CSA, well they were quite simply dreadful in the nineties.  The fact my son was so far away did not matter…the Act at the time made no allowances for my situation excepting a small reduction in child support payments for high costs of access (18.5% down to 16.5% if memory serves).  When I couldn’t afford to fly over there anyway (the reduction was nowhere near the costs to pay for 2 or 3 weeks in the UK), the reduction was removed and could not be used again.  I should point out that my ex wife was receiving a single mothers pension from the Australian Government at that time also (she was entitled to it for 12 months after she left), as well as full child payments from me, and of course the local pension there.

It was a nightmare.  Not only did I have to pay, not see my son and rack up a fortune in phone calls to speak to him (no internet/no cheap calls) but I also took endless angry calls from my ex wife complaining that she was not getting my payments, so in order to keep the peace it was I who had to call CSA to complain and try and fix it!  Each time I had to explain the situation and each time it was never fixed (bottom line, CSA paid to the Commonwealth Bank in London, who in turn paid her Midlands Bank in the UK…by the time it got there and the fees were paid, she lost a large part of the payment anyway…add to that it was never regular).  Her anger resulted in no father’s day cards, no school reports, no Xmas cards…not much aside from allowing me to call and talk to him.

Thankfully, about 10 years in, I struck a CSA person who told me “something off the record” whereby I open an Australian account and send my ex wife the debit card and pin.  That way I could make 1 payment a month, it would be in straight away…have an agreed amount, and I wore the exchange risk.  So, my ex wife opted out and our lives became much more bearable…we started to talk…and my relationship, albeit via distance, with my son prospered.  He’s now been out to visit me, and is moving here permanently early next year.  He is 17 years old now, and his Mum and I get along fine.

I know this is long winded but please hang in.

So the above was under the OLD system that is now being suggested we return to?

Then consider this.  I am now the proud father of another fantastic son.  Some could argue I’m a sucker for punishment, but frankly I am very happy to be getting this opportunity (I call them my bookends).  He is 19 months old.  I have split from his mother.  We have 50/50 shared parenting in place.  I pay a reduced amount and also get family assistance and the childcare rebate.  What’s more, I have found the CSA to be the opposite of what they used to be.  They have been helpful, and they have been fair in their approach.  In my opinion, I get the opportunity to be a father to the best of my ability…an opportunity that I believe the old system would not allow.  The system does actually work.

Look, I get there are bad men out there.  There are bad women too.  They are bad PEOPLE.  The kids should be protected, and their voices heard.  This is of paramount concern to me and to (I assume) all of the good people out there wanting the best for their kids and the kids of others.  But where does reverting back to the old system leave me, my young son and others like us (male or female!)?  Where does it leave my young son’s relationship with his Dad if all the support is removed and I can’t afford to have him half the time?  What about the rest of the good people out there (male or female as it makes no difference!) doing the right thing to make the best of a bad situation?

Please let’s talk about other alternatives.  Please don’t send me, and others like me (and our children) back to the craziness of the old system.

Sorry it was so long winded.  Clearly it is an issue close to my heart.

Amos Keeto says:

02:22pm | 20/10/09

@iansand

Err no actually, that is certainly the case in some instances but not all. Many times there really are cases where the mother is struggling to keep the children from their violent father and the father is doing his damnedest to “punish and control” the mother for leaving them by using the children as a weapon. I’ve seen it, first hand, and sadly it’s quite common.

MJ says:

02:33pm | 20/10/09

Oh and just quickly, Zeta…I could not give a flying &$*$ about the mens movement, what men have done or not done!  Please read my earler post and tell me if youc an seriously suggest that I was ‘less of a man’ ?  I’m not interested in lashing out at anyone, strong or otherwise (excepting you at this moment). 

All I want is to be able to afford to raise my son and have him live with me 50% of the time. 50/50 means 2 custodial parents.  Shared responsibility.  Nothing to do with who is weak or strong.  The surrent system allows this.

Can we stay on topic and take the man hating/woman hating B.S. elsewhere so the stench does not permeate in here?

iansand says:

02:56pm | 20/10/09

Amos Keeto - Perhaps I should have said at least one recalcitrant parent who is beyond persuasion.

Eric says:

04:39pm | 20/10/09

Zeta: Nice tale. But your conclusion is crap.

Why? Because it’s the men who run the world who are oppressing all the other men, in order to get the support of women.

The mistake you made is to consider all men as being a homogenous group. Instead, there are a few men at the top of the pyramid, and many men below. Same goes for women.

The men at the top of the pyramid find it convenient to squash the men below by enlisting women, as well as foolish men who can’t see through their schemes. A male politician, lawyer or journalist will quite happily condemn *other* men to pariah status, as long as his personal advantage is assured.

Follow the money.

Amos Keeto says:

05:02pm | 20/10/09

@iansand

Ah, in that case I agree

Bob says:

06:42pm | 20/10/09

Zeta
So only men have waged war? Can you please name me one queen of England apart from Elizabeth II who never waged war? And that is only one country. And she hardly counts.

distressed mother says:

08:35pm | 20/10/09

I am currently going through the court system and all i can say is it has gone too far with mens rights. My ex husband is abusive now more verbal than anything he uses our daughter to control me he has already destroyed me financially and now is blackmiling me into signing an agreement for him not to pay any child support at all or else he will drag it on for years in court which i can’t afford. My lawyers advice was to keep that quiet as if it was disclosed to the court it would be repoerted to docs like i am to blame for it.
My ex husband has no regard for his daughter and infact was upset i had a girl yet can pretend to be a loving father when it suits his situation. I am sure there are great fathers out there .Unfortunately my ex husband is evil and will go to any length to destroy me for his own satisfaction.My story is too long to tell however i feel there is no justice for the innocent or if you lack finances to seek justice.

Chris L says:

09:00pm | 20/10/09

Zeta, I am too lazy to verify your facts, even if I were inclined to disagree. I would, however, like to put forward the notion that You Rock! True or not that depiction sums up the mentality of the human race… at least in my opinion.

John says:

12:47am | 21/10/09

It would seem that you are all talking about abuse. Either toward the woman, child, or man. Black mail, or just being down right evil.
But what about this scenario…Married couple with two young kids. Woman goes and sleeps with another man and gets caught out. The woman is in the wrong big time. So what happens in the courts? Even though the man is the main wage earner, and the woman doesn’t work, the man loses everything, the woman gets the house and the kids, and she doesn’t even work. The man has to now pay all the bills and find himself a place to live. And before anyone asks the question, yes they were happy before the one night stand, and no he wasn’t abusive.
Tell me where is the justice?

Tim says:

07:41am | 21/10/09

Distressed mother,
that is a bad position to be in.
However, now you should be able to sympathise with the thousands of men who have this happen to them every year.
Or is it OK when the shoe is on the other foot?

Lexi says:

08:06am | 21/10/09

@Paul Horn: why single me out?  I haven’t for one minute advocated for any “feminist” agenda, nor suggested that men should or shouldn’t do anything in particular.  You have left me flummoxed.  My main position on “feminisim” is that I do not know what it is supposed to be.  I don’t profess to be a feminist - rather, I consider myself a post modernist.  I can identify what post modernism is, and why I identify with it.  I think there were suffragetes pre-war, there were feminists in the 60s and 70s.  But what does feminism mean now?  To me it’s just a worn out stereotype of hairy armpitted, bra burning, man-hating women.  That’s not me - so I guess I’m not a feminist…

My main position on this topic is that the rights and protection of the children should be paramount.  Ideally, children should have quality and quantity of time with both parents, a stable and secure environment in which to live and a happy and healthy lifestyle. 

I’m with @MJ: Can we stay on topic and take the man hating/woman hating B.S. elsewhere so the stench does not permeate in here?

BTW @MJ, thanks for having the courage to share your personal journey.  It was a touching account of a father fighting for his relationship with his kids.  Good on you and all the best

MJ says:

08:59am | 21/10/09

@Lexi: Thanks.

Astra says:

02:17pm | 21/10/09

Surely each case should be decided and judged on it’s own.

I too am a grandparent, watching my child, fight to protect her toddler from a man who tried to kill them both.  A man with a history of violence.

Yet we are told by the lawyers that under the 2006 Howard legislation, this man is entitled to unsupervised time with the toddler.

This is where the legislation needs changing, where there are proven instances of abuse, regardless of what kind of abuse and why each case needs to be decided, not under blanket legislation but by individual circumstances.

We are becoming more and more disillushioned with the Family Law system and its costs and more and more frightened that we won’t be able to protect this wonderful, happy little soul from a violent and dangerous man.

How wrong is this?

anon says:

07:43pm | 21/10/09

i could cite the same number of examples for mothers too tracey. you quote an emotive letter of a violent man and ignore all the equally emotive stories out there where fathers, even with current legislation, are denied access to their children by some women acting purely on emotion and have had to fight it out in the courts, even with the current legislation, even when there’s NO QUESTION the father is not violent and not a sexual offender. i know alot of men this has happened to, including one close to me (although luckily it didn’t go to court, but because of legislation he has the fortnightly access and a week here and there only because of the current legislation). the mother now sees how good a relationship her child has with the father and has chilled out. and also how much her daughter is benefiting from this relationship in terms of behaviour.  she was acting on emotion and didn’t therefore act logically and denied him access, threatened to call cops if he came around for his access visit as is his right.yelling in the street etc (who wants to subject child to that) i also have a friend who’s ex has come to her asking for more access so he can not struggle financially as he has to see them travelling a long distance - THAT is what the current system is designed for, child protection is another issue altogether - she also logically and non emotively knows her kids need a relationship with their father.

this piece shows you also have no proper understanding of the current legislation and its purpose.  (astra, get another lawyer, you can go for supervised visits, another friend of mine has done this). to change it after a high profile case in the media and a few emotive submissions and a petition of 3,500 names would ruin the lives of children who currently enjoy a relationship with their father (and who now doesn’t have to be financially crippled like the good ‘ol days - you know this means the kids benefit from that too?) only from the current legislation.

anon says:

07:52pm | 21/10/09

not trying to be petty or anything, but the case in the letter above is a case that happened BEFORE these laws were introduced.  in the bridge kid dropping case, he was also going to the courts for more access - doesn’t this mean that fathers aren’t automatically given shared access to their children.  of course they’re heinous cases, but a change in THIS law won’t stop them.

distressed mother says:

08:33pm | 21/10/09

@tim I am stating that each case should be judged individually and not presumed shared responsibility is best interest for children as it is not in every case. Regardless of gender it goes both ways im not attacking decent fathers,im just saying that in my case my ex knows the current law favours him and uses my daughter as a weapon i can not even put in words his behaviour as it would sound so unreal however i will scarred for the rest of my life from his torment and abuse animals get treated better than what i did. I have one question is it shared parenting when he may see his daughter once a week for a couple of hours thats when he does show and i have to be present as my daughter will not be alone with him and the fact he does not know how to change nappies or feed her he just passes her to me.I do not get any financial help at all from him and as i stated earlier he has blackmailed me into an agreement not to pay any child support at all for the next 16 years. Above all that he uses that short time to put me down call me names and make comments how our daughter looks nothing like him.
Also making fun how he got away with hiding his fortune and i got nothing.I could go on and on the injustice is really eating me up.

Jack Sullivan says:

02:00pm | 22/10/09

My name is Jack Sullivan.  I am 80 years old & over the years have contributed a lot to this country.  I have worked hard all my life to support my family & to contribute to this country.  My father was a Gallipoli & Flanders survivor whose name is in the Australian War Memorial.  He was shot in Gallipoli & gassed in Flanders trying to fight for democracy & for this country.

Some of my lifelong friends include RM Williams, Stan Coster, Slim Dusty, Brian Young, Rick & Thel Carey & Buddy Williams. 

I raised my 3 children with high standards & told them that Australia was the greatest country in the world & that we were very fortunate to be Australian.  I now wonder what has happened to this country. 

My daughter is 39 years old & has been dragged through the Family Law Court system now for almost 14 years.  She is a lovely girl & used to be a model & is an amazing artist as well.  She did artwork for RM Williams’ private art collection & could’ve easily have been one of Australia’s greatest artists if she had not have been constantly harrassed by the Family Law Court of Australia.

At one time she had the world at her feet before the abuse started.

She has 2 children from 2 separate relationships.  All she ever wanted was a loving husband & children.  She has now been subjected to 21 years of the most extreme domestic violence imaginable.  Not only did the police fail to protect her & her children from Domestic Violence, the Family Law Court have further continued to harass her & her children (my grandchildren) despite the abuse she has already suffered.  I am proud of her that she is such a survivor - but it has obviously taken a huge toll on her - like so many others.  Most women who are subjected to the Family Law Court’s abusive system end up suffering long term Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  This used to only happen to survivors of the First World War!!!  The government MUST stop allowing the Family Law Court to continue harrassing good mothers.

I am disgusted that the legal system in this country that is meant to be in place to protect the children, has totally failed.  The Family Court continue to support the abusers & not the good parent.

The court have actually CONGRATULATED these ‘men’ for continuing their harrassment of my daughter & her children.  It absolutely sickens me that people who work within the system are making HUGE amounts of money by harrassing & endangering the lives of the weak & vunerable.

My ears fall silent to any arguments against men versus women.  It is not about this.  It is about what is right & what is wrong.  It is that simple. 

There are good & bad men - just as there are good & bad women. 

Unfortunately, in this country I see a growing number of men who don’t want to work & pay taxes, who bludge off the system year in year out, use & abuse women & children, take drugs which they buy with their Centrelink payments & then are given more rights than good mothers who protect their children in the Family Law Court system.

A Royal Commission also needs to be conducted into the misconduct & deceit by official court ‘reporters’.  A lot of these people are making up lies to drag cases out & they need to all be held accountable. 

The number of child deaths which are directly attributable to Family Law Court orders in this country is on the increase.  Yet, the Family Court workers continue to refuse to accept ANY responsibility for mothers being FORCED to send their children to men who are loose cannons.

A man who abandons a pregnant woman should have no further parental rights.  He has not even bothered to try to be a father.  The court are now allowing these men who abandon a pregnant woman to actually take her to court & down the track legally abduct her child.  They are being given the same rights as a man who has been a devoted father.  This is wrong.

The government is totally responsible for what is going on & needs to speed things up to protect the vunerable from further harm.

To the abusive men out there (& you know WHO you are) shame on you.  It disgusts me to read some of the comments on here that are aimed at women. 

Unfortunately in Australia, a lot of men are very abusive & a lot of this is because they are taking drugs.  These men must be stopped from dragging women & children down any further & they must be stopped from being legally allowed to harm women & children.

I hope the government will change the laws to stop children being placed into harmful & potentially fatal situations because of the complete failure of the Family Law Court’s decision makers.

I call the Family Law Court ‘Australia’s Shame’

Jack Sullivan
(Country Queensland)

R Johnson says:

02:24pm | 22/10/09

My mother has been harrassed for so long by the Family Law Court just because she is a good mother.  I am 21 years of age & I witnessed her going through HELL to protect me.  The court NEVER listened to my wishes & continued forcing me to go to an abusive ‘father’.  My life & my mother’s have been totally DESTROYED not by my ‘father’ but by the court system that ALLOWED him to continue his abuse of me & my mother.

Because of the Family Law Court, my ‘father’ abducted me & physically abused me with his partner - I ended up on a drip system in hospital in intensive care because of the abuse I suffered. 

The court told my mother if she didn’t send me to this person that she would be jailed. 

After my mother got me back (by bypassing ALL the Family Law Court protocol that couldn’t & wouldn’t help me - the Children’s Rep still told the Judge that I should have a ‘relationship’ with my ‘father’!!!!!!!!!  She is still employed by the Australian Tax payer & still working for the Family Law Court!!!!.  The State & Federal Police were NOT ALLOWED TO STEP IN & return me to my mother).  I could’ve been murdered & the police still refused to check up on me!!!!!!!!!

I’ve now just completed a Real Estate course & am relocating to live in Europe because I hate Australia so much because of the legalised harrassment that the Family Law Court constantly put me & my mother through.  I also witnessed lies by ‘Court Appointed Report Writers’.  They should be in jail for the lies they wrote. 

My mother is also going to relocate to Europe because she is so disgusted with what this country has subjected us to.

I don’t want to live in a country that harrasses women & children like this & forces abusive men on innocent & vunerable people.  You can keep Australia & Australia Day - it means nothing to me anymore.

Most Australian men do nothing but swear, drink, take drugs & assault people.  This IS the reality of this country.  I have travelled overseas & have seen how other cultures respect their women & children.  I see most Australian men as nothing but total abusive yobbos & the courts continue giving these people the right to harm the innocent.

Bev says:

12:09am | 23/10/09

figures from the Australian Institute of Crimenology state of the 22 child murders in Australia in 2006/2007 mothers commited 11,stepfathers/boyfriend 6 and fathers 5.

Western Australian Government figures Mothers carried out almost 68 per cent of cases of emotional and psychological abuse committed
by parents, about 53 per cent of physical abuse and more
than 94 per cent of neglect cases.

Domestic violence Court stats Victoria men comprise 31% of complainants

Western Australian study exec summary: While the number of men injured
in domestic violence incidents are less than women a far greater percentage of their injuries require hospitalization including burns, scalding, stab wounds and fractures because women use weapons were as most men dont.

What does all this mean?  Not a lot actually.  What the law changes did was move the pendulum to the centre so all parties get a better go especialy children and parents were forced to think of the child arrangments more closely and for judges the freedom to judge cases on merit free from the appaling bias which prevailed pre 2006. Are their losers? Yes but they are many less.  The only reason there is a fuss now is feminists and some womens group see a lose of power over “their children” and men.

concerned mother says:

08:05pm | 11/11/09

Jack Sullivan
I was brought to tears by what you wrote.  I pray to God that things change in this country.  It must be such a disappointment to a man like you to see the horrific things that are going on in this country now.  The bit that touched me the most about what you wrote was that “Most women who are subjected to the Family Law Court’s abusive system end up suffering long term Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and that this used to only happen to survivors of the First World War.” When I read that it made me shake my head in shame at the people who cause this kind of stress.  I agree with absolutely everything you said and it terrifies me, as I am about to enter the court system too unfortunately as I have just recently left my husband who was extremely violent and abusive.  He is so manipulative and can charm the pants off anyone and he is determined to make me look like i’m crazy and an unfit mother.  I wish that I could have more faith in the court system to protect me and my kids but unfortunately because of the way that it fails so many I am terrified of what it might to do me.  I hope that your daughter finds peace and happiness in her life and I hope to God that things in this country change.

anon says:

11:08pm | 20/11/09

If fathers were having ‘shared custody’ before the relationship breakdown and doing their share being truly involved and connected with the kids and their family, in most cases there would be no relationship breakdown! In otherwords, why should they get shared custody if they never volunteered shared custody before the split?!!

ruth says:

06:41pm | 06/03/10

Both men and women use the family law system abusively and deceitfully. If we could drop the anti-feminist tripe and talk about the p;light of these children that would be a start.

wanting clearer guidelines says:

11:26am | 25/03/10

I am surprised that even if the child could not stand up in court, being so young, that they could not produce the physical evidence that anal intercourse on such a young child would have most likely caused. Investigations by Child Protective Services are not full proof, but often they are quite thorough. The system may also assist in providing emergecy accomodation and stipulate that there be no contact between the child and alleged abuser until they have completed their side of the investigation. The waters of this particular situation as stated appear muddied and it would be difficult for anyone to see a clear argument from it in a legal sense. The issue of sexual abuse is a criminal issue and should be approached that way in the first instance so there is clarity on that part of the whole situation and direction is taken specific to the needs that issue presents. The abuser ma not even be the person accused, it may be anyone within the child’s sphere.

Muriel says:

05:59pm | 03/04/10

I can so relate to Jack’s letter, and I too wrote a letter.  My child’s voice is completely suppressed in the current system of the family law court.  My counsel has advised things such as, “it may likely be that you have to hand the child over to give him enough rope to hang himself”.  Of course that means, “wait until he does something overtly violent towards the child and then perhaps we’ll believe you”  And I’m not even going to mention the abusive and disparaging comments made by the actual magistrate about the protective mother.  All along the way, the actions and words of the protective mother are diminished, while the fathers words, who showed minimal interest in his child before the separation, are given more weight and credibility.  The protective mothers affidavits ARE the voice of the child/ren, they should not be dismissed so quickly.  But all it needs is affidavits from the father, with each paragraph a lie of a false denial, and it’s given even more credibility, as so far, in my case, they have not been commented negatively upon, whereas, my child’s voice, through my affidavits were outwardly scorned. 

What type of system does this?  Then there’s the appointment of an Independent Child’s Lawyer.  Is this greasing the cogs of their own system, or what?  The only correspondence I’ve received from this person, who I have no idea who’s real job is, is to pay some money!  How about seeing some positive results first. 

The system is broken.  And it’s ripe to be used by abusive ex’s, especially those with financial means by way of being a high income earner, to really put the financial squeeze and possibly bankrupt the mother, who is likely to be struggling on a supporting parenting pension and doing her best to keep the kids out of financial disadvantage.  There’s supposed to be a pre-court procedure, but an abusive ex can lie to his lawyer about access being denied (the fact that this is proven a lie shortly after court process starts becomes irrelevant) and mark the petition as “urgent” and hence, it doesn’t matter what the protective mother was trying to achieve by way of re-negotiating contact in light of the child’s obvious distress at being abused at the other parent’s place, the mother is completely forced into court, unless she complies with his demands of 50/50.  It doesn’t matter that the father has proven he can’t cope with much less than that, by way of screaming and ranting at the child while regularly in his care.  The protective mother has no out - none at all.  And if the protective mother has no out, then the child has no voice.

Muriel says:

06:03pm | 03/04/10

hmmm, many comments on here are very disheartening indeed.  So many people make comments when it’s clear they’ve never been exposed, involved or anywhere near the family law court system. 

Best comments I read were James and Mogs, and MJ’s story shows that he is a decent bloke. 

So many commenters on here, really don’t know what they are talking about.

lib says:

06:26pm | 22/03/11

I saw this on Facebook:

Good fathers do not take children away from good mothers…........And bad mothers do not spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours fighting in court to protect children from good fathers.  Its common sense.

lilly says:

07:49pm | 22/03/11

the family law amendments should be in the best interest of the child not the parents if a child is a risk or has witnessed abuse by a parent that is sometimes worse than the assault itself contact should cease when there is violence involved or sexual abuse, what part of that don’t you understand.any father groups or men that have nothing too hide and are a good father then you should be allowed too spend time with your child, but some of you are a narcissist or a sociopath or have displayed signs of anti social behavior you wouldn’t make a very good role model for your child as what you sow is what you reap.and your child is at risk.

Portia says:

08:02pm | 22/03/11

You men are really showing your selfish sides here wanting all for yourselves and nothing for the children. You want your rights.
The child is also a human being with the right to be secure and safe, the right not to be raped, tortured, buggered, sold for sex, drugged etc as we know is happening because men- sperm donors want their rights.
Research shows that men who are abusers never stop trying to gain possesion of their former partners and use the children to do that. Of course properly trained professionals know this and understand domestic violence by proxy, grooming of professionals by these sociopaths.
If men are so discriminated against then why is it that only the females have to have psychiatric assessments and not the male terrorists?It all goes back to the patriarchal system and the creation of subservient Eve ill Eve and her controller Adam.

Peter says:

10:37pm | 22/03/11

The child complained of a sore bottom and said “daddy wiggled my bottom with his special stick”.

Then freaking jail the filthy dogs you dead beat lazy Australian cops sleazing off tax payers funds!

Same goes for family court judges. Jail them too for giving children to paedophiles!

MJ says:

01:06pm | 23/03/11

My mother could have written this same letter about my court ordeal and my now 3 and a half year old daughter!!! Maddening   I am going broke, my daughter is in counseling as she is such mess. It is ruining my entire families lives!! Father doesn’t want her it’s a control game.The counselors, lawyers, FOC, CPS are all quilty of making money at the cost of our children’s safety!!