It hasn’t been a good week for disaffected fathers. Most weeks aren’t. Since Mick Fox disrupted half of Sydney to protest his custodial battle, we’ve seen the shocking case of Paul Rogers, who fatally gassed himself and his daughter Kyla, while the awful case of Ramazan Acar goes through the courts. Read the gruesome details if you dare.

His point got across, even if traffic couldn't

As we all know, custodial battles over children are the common thread in these and many similar cases. But why do men snap? At what point does frustration boil over into mass scale public nuisance… or even to murder?

Let’s take a small picture view and a big picture view. The small picture, with a focus on the ass that is family law, comes from Barry Williams, president of the Lone Fathers Association. The wide view comes from social analyst Richard Eckersley, who regularly measures Australia’s pulse through a thing called the Wellbeing Index.

As the president of the Lone Fathers Association, and the spokesman for its affiliate Parents Without Partners, Barry Williams says he heads the two biggest single parent groups in the world, and is Australia’s only registered federal lobbyist on family law.

Williams doesn’t mince his words when asked why fathers snap. “The government and its departments are causing a lot of these problems,” he tells The Punch.

“The government spends around $250 million a year on women’s services, and our organisation supports that because they need it. But we wouldn’t even get $15 million.

“Men snap because they can’t get access to immediate services like women can. There are no men’s refuges at all in Australia. The government has got no services for men.”

According to Williams, the major problem with the family law system is that mothers often hold all the legal aces.

“When two people go to court, the court will say the kids are to have shared care. But still, the other partner can say ‘no I’m not going to let it happen’. The only option then is to go back to court.”

And that, says Williams, is a process which can cost anywhere between $20,000 and $100,000 – money which is obviously well beyond the reach of most people, not least dads paying child support.

Williams says he’s well aware there are many violent fathers in the community who are rightfully denied access to their children. Again and again, he states that the death of one child at the hands of a violent father is one too many.

That said, he fears the introduction of a new raft of laws redefining the concept of family violence. Potentially, says Williams, these laws could result in more men being falsely accused of violence and denied access to their kids. And this, he says, could lead to more scenarios like this week’s.

“We need a smart law so that when and if a person is denied access to their children, the police have powers to go and intervene, to go and look at the orders. This would stop a lot of this,” he says.

Now let’s go big picture, because the issue of disaffected fathers isn’t just an issue about the law. It’s about men, their dreams, their ambitions and their often shattered self esteem.

Social analyst Richard Eckersley has done a lot of work showing that women are better socially connected than men these days. “Men often connect socially through their partners and when that breaks down, their support network breaks down,” he says.

This makes sense on an intuitive level. As any parent knows, their social network revolves around their kids, and the parents of their kids’ friends. When a man is denied access to the kids, the grown-ups disappear too.

“If you look at issues like suicide, it’s clear that men are particularly vulnerable when their marriage breaks down,” Eckersley explains. “Women get more depression than men but men commit suicide more often.”

“Men also tend to respond to their despair, their alienation, their isolation, through violence and drug and alcohol abuse.”

But there is something even deeper underpinning men’s vulnerability after a marriage breakdown, as Eckersley explains.

“At a broader level, what we’ve seen in western culture is a shift from intrinsic to extrinsic values and goals. So much [of people’s self esteem] depends on what you do with your life, what you’re achieving, your lifestyle.

“We live in a culture that celebrates success in individualism and materialism. Our sense of identity is determined by what we achieve in our own personal lives, and less on things that were once social givens, like shared cultural traditions, religious and ethnic affiliations and community attachments.

“These broader, deeper forms of identity and belonging are really important in sustaining you when things come unhinged at the personal level.”

So the problem, according to Eckersley, is that men feel worthless when a marriage breaks down. And that can bring them unhinged. But at what point does an unhinged Dad become a murderous Dad?

Eckersley can not, and will not, draw a direct link between this week’s events, and the dented self esteem of single fathers. But he does draw an indirect link.

“You can’t use what I’ve told you to explain what happened on the Gold Coast this week,” he says. “But you can say this is the sort of context that makes it more likely to happen. It’s all about probabilities.”

Lifeline offers 24/7 crisis support on 131114.

361 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • John C says:

      06:13am | 20/05/11

      I cannot understand how parents, mothers or fathers, can do violence to their own children, irrespective of circumstances. I do nit believe in capital punishment but am prepared to make an exception for parents who kill ntheir own children and would extend this to other child killers. And what about the step fathers who self indulgently slay kids in their care and the equally self indulgent mothers who stand by and let this happen because they do not want to lose the company of these bastards or are frightened and would prefer their kidsvget hurt rather than themselves.

      And my particular favorite. Those family killers who are competent enough to kill their kids and/or estranged wife but then botch their own suicide.

    • Huey says:

      08:12am | 20/05/11

      @ John C, you DO believe in capital punishment. It’s not an exceptions thing. Just pointing that out.  I would hang the bastards (including mothers) who murder from spite too.

    • Fiona says:

      08:46am | 20/05/11

      Agreed JohnC. Had a friend who knew Daniel Valerio’s “family” who told some awful tales about that couple.  Maybe those who kill their kids/family once their lust for revenge is satisfied, run out of steam???

    • Kika says:

      10:01am | 20/05/11

      Well, anyone can be a parent. Even if you are imbalanced, have personality issues or are just a jerk sadly no one can stop you from having sx.

    • PatG says:

      10:32am | 20/05/11

      I can’t understand why so many parents fight so much over custody, and in particular try and prevent the other parent from seeing their kids. Obviously where there is a danger to the kids access needs to be denied, but in most cases denying access is only going to hurt everyone involved. It seems to me that many mothers try and prevent access because they are bitter towards the father (ie. out of spite), not because of any real danger to the kids. So IMO mothers are just guilty as the government for causing these problems.

    • Mayday says:

      04:08pm | 20/05/11

      The mantra which helped me through my separation was -
      “I love the kids more than I ‘hate’ my partner.” 

      We are both parents to our two sons and they deserve access to both parents regardless of the state of our marriage, end of story.

      Try and keep it from getting to the Family Court, its just a feeding frenzy for lawyers.

    • ZSRenn says:

      09:31pm | 20/05/11

      At 52 I am just starting to rebuild my life.

      When I was 34 I took a shower with my then 2 year old daughter at my mother’s house with her and my father there. I was living back at my parents house as it was the only way I could afford to pay the massive legal fees that were needed to get my daughter back from Perth to Sydney after my wife left whilst I was at work leaving only my clothes. 

      I immediately had my wages garnished when my wife bolted and was paying 28% of my wage before tax to the CSA for my daughter. I complained that I should not be paying as my wife had removed my daughter from the state and I had no contact. Further I did not know where my daughter was. They could not tell me due to privacy laws.

      I returned my daughter to her mother and two weeks later received a letter from the Family Law Court that my wife had moved an action against me citing Child Molestation as the reason I was being denied access. No criminal action was ever taken against me or none ever referred too. Forget the presumption of innocence in the Family Law Court as two court hearings later I was given supervised access with a friend who was a registered nurse.

      Finally another two years later I was given full access to my daughter. I had run out of money 18 months earlier and was representing me against a barrister and a lawyer supplied by the government for my wife and a barrister and a lawyer provided by the government for my daughter.

      Victory you say!

      No my wife would not honor the orders and another 7 years later after her being given a 2 year suspended sentence and 150 community service hours which were never preformed I still could not get access to my daughter. I had another court appearance that would I guess put my wife in jail.

      I thought that my wife being jailed and my daughter now 12 and hating me because I was always taking mommy to court I would do the Solomon thing and tell the court I was dropping all actions. I lost it in the court room though and told the family law court exactly what I thought of it. I enjoyed that night in the holding cells.

      I paid child support until my daughter was 18 even though I was fully aware that she had finished school at 16 and my wife had not reported it to CSA.

      So yes it is understandable why some men who may be less stable than I could find a reason for these horrendous actions.

    • acotrel says:

      08:17am | 22/05/11

      People need to understand that there is life after divorce, and if you are going to walk away, do it early as possible.  Even adult offspring can cause a divorcee grief, and sometimes it’s better to just cut them dead!

    • R says:

      05:00pm | 22/05/11

      Can’t condone violence in any way, shape or form.  That said, the reason good dad’s run off the rails is because the father’s welfare isn’t even on the radar.  The policy doesn’t permit a care for the dad and from my own bitter experience it seems that Family Services only employ people who have naturally hard hearts towards men.  We just don’t rate a mention.  Simple as that.

      Despair takes a person to some pretty dark and terrible places.  You don’t recover from the loss of your kids, particularly to a woman who apparently just got bored with the relationship.  I’m earning 100 grand and can barely feed my new family.

    • b says:

      06:55am | 23/05/11

      People fight over children because there is money involved.  It has nothing to do with what is best for the children.  Give people a monetary prize attached to winning the kids and they’ll fight to the death.  Most of these problems could be fixed by making the custodial parent support the child themselves.  That might not be best for mothers or fathers, but it would be best for the children.  Why don’t we try putting them first.

    • Erick says:

      06:22am | 20/05/11

      It’s good to see this issue coming up for discussion with some input from men. Previously, all I’ve seen in the mainstream is feminist propaganda against fathers.

      There is a huge social bias against men and fathers. One example is the way that attention focuses on fathers who kill their children, even though there is an equal or greater number of mothers who kill their children.

      It’s not just that men lack the social networks that support women. It’s also the fact that from early childhood, boys and men are targeted for suspicion and derision as potential rapists, potential wife-beaters, potential child-killers. Taxpayer-funded campaigns, educational institutions, and the mainstream media constantly attack and subvert every aspect of masculinity, painting it as evil.

      This causes enormous damage to self-esteem and self-worth among men, whether conscious or not. It also leads to a gradual rejection of the society and institutions that tell a man he is worthless, nothing but a threat to those he loves. For some, the prophecy may become self-fulfilling - but most men take it out on themselves.

      Sadly, hardly anyone cares. Macho men say “suck it up”, while feminists say men deserve all the abuse they get, and more. And so the cycle continues, and society begins to shred under the strain of the unacknowledged war against males.

    • KH says:

      07:51am | 20/05/11

      I’m yet to hear of a woman who kills her children being a ‘revenge’ attack - it is usually mental illness.  The men this week, and that evil Farquharson man (who I hope dies a slow painful death) did it out of revenge.  That is not a mental illness - they had control over it, and chose to do it anyway, which makes them the lowest of the low.

    • Mahhrat says:

      08:07am | 20/05/11

      @Erick, have you got any studies pointing to the claim in para 2?  I’m not disagreeing with you mate, but genuinely interested.

    • Buzz says:

      08:09am | 20/05/11

      “even though there is an equal or greater number of mothers who kill their children.” Feel free to support your opinions with links to actual sources. Or are you just on a rant again?
      Every nasty, unsupported, anti-women comment you make undermines all of the true and important points you make about the position of men in society. Keep your eye on the ball Erick, the mens movement needs people like you, just less one-eyed and bitter.

    • AliceC says:

      08:33am | 20/05/11

      @Erick

      Finally, and article that give a voice to men and how they are suffering, and you still manage to hijack it and turn it against feminists.

      “Williams doesn’t mince his words when asked why fathers snap. “The government and its departments are causing a lot of these problems,” he tells The Punch.”

      It is not a femenost conspiracy against men, the departments need an overhaul as to how individual situations are treated.

    • Erick says:

      08:36am | 20/05/11

      @KH - There we go, a perfect example of the double standard. When men kill, they’re evil, but when women kill, it’s because they’re “mentally ill”. I love the way you provide proof for everything I say.

      @Mahhrat - I have some studies bookmarked at home, but I’m at work now. If I have time to do a bit of googling, I’ll drag them up. Otherwise it will have to wait.

      @Buzz - Exactly how is it “anti-women” to point out that women are just as bad (and just as good) as men? That’s called acknowledging equality. The fact that you somehow perceive it as an attack on women is an example of the bias against men in our world.

    • Geoff - Brisbane says:

      08:42am | 20/05/11

      @KH

      I think thats one of the main points.

      The women who kill their children claim temporary mental illness which allows them and you to make up excuses for why they did it.

      If temporary mental illness is real, Wouldn’t an extreme fit of rage also be classed as a temporary mental illness?

    • Erick says:

      08:42am | 20/05/11

      @AliceC - The main reason why men get unfair treatment is because of the dominant feminist mindset in those departments, as well as the dominant feminist lobby in politics and the media. The government’s proposed legislation to reduce men’s rights in the Family Court, mentioned in the article, is a direct result of feminist lobbying.

    • Sony B Goode says:

      08:43am | 20/05/11

      Unscrupulous lawyer know how to play the game, which is heap shit on the man. The process will destroy some men emotionally and financially, and then milk them for what remaining income they have for a couple of decades.
      Some reach a stage where they are faced with overwhelming insurmountable institutionalised injustice.
      Their names have been dragged through the mud, they have lost all dignity, they have lost all assets and they are milked for most of their remaining income.
      It’s not surprising some men completely snap.

    • egg says:

      08:50am | 20/05/11

      ha! as soon as i saw what this article was about, i just *knew* erick would be here. i also wondered how long the words “feminist propaganda” would take to be rolled out… second sentence, that shows far more restraint than i was expecting. raspberry

    • Fiona says:

      08:52am | 20/05/11

      Thought you said you were retired Erick??? If not, get to work!
      Btw, reading your latest rant (er post), one could assume that from infancy, most mothers are raising boys with the idea that they are evil in general. Haven’t seen any evidence of that one yet.

    • skepdad says:

      08:57am | 20/05/11

      @Buzz: anti-misandry are anti-women is not the same thing.

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:03am | 20/05/11

      Alice, what do you think is the gender makeup of these ‘government departments’ that deal with these issues?

      Given that I provide support to some of these in my experience its over 80% female…..and of the 20% that are male, the odd one or two of them hetero wink

      So there is still apoint to be made

    • Tom says:

      09:14am | 20/05/11

      @egg, and your point is?

    • KH says:

      09:23am | 20/05/11

      Show me them - the women who killed out of revenge at their former partner.  The cases I have read about the women had custody, or were still married and the husband came home with no idea why.  Yet the men who kill their kids are nearly always estranged and bitter about custody arrangements….....

    • Aaron says:

      09:24am | 20/05/11

      KH: And where is your evidence that the men only do it out of revenge? There is none because quite often with men they will kill themselves in the process so assumptions are made.

      As you mentioned Farquharson let’s go with this one, technically there is no conclusive evidence that he did it out of revenge or that there was a mental illness, in his case he was already found guilty before it hit trial.

      Let’s take the case in America where a woman was about to lose custody of her children, and in order to prevent the father having the children she drugged, slashed and incinerated them? That sounds like revenge to me. Or is that different? was she obviously distressed about losing her kids that she thought she would be the one to take them away rather than someone else take them away?

      Let’s also look at the number of child abuse cases where mothers have whipped, caged and sexually abused little boys because they “will” one day become rapists and abusers? Hey let’s look at the SA case where a family containing 5 adults (3 women, 2 men) who mistreated their 6 children, which was instigated by the women. But that’s right they would have been suffering a mental illness huh?

      The problem with people like you KH is that they take the approach of women are nurturers not hunters, which is a strange approach to take when you consider that in the animal kingdom it is the female who hunts and provides for their family rather than the male.

    • Bev says:

      09:38am | 20/05/11

      Mahhrat says:08:07am | 20/05/11

      @Erick, have you got any studies pointing to the claim in para 2?  I’m not disagreeing with you mate, but genuinely interested.
      Though the numbers vary year to year on average mothers murder their children at twice the rate of fathers and for much the same reasons.
      The Australian Institute of Criminology reported for the year 2006/2007 that 22 children were murdered.  11 by mothers 6 by fathers and 5 by step fathers. Why pick this year? Because it was the first year that the stats were broken down into catagories.  Before that it was just reported as men and women. The reason people don’t perceive this is very simple when a mother kills the facts are reported in a matter of fact way it just another news story. When fathers kill we get an absolute deluge of news and articles from feminists condeming fathers (all fathers) and how dangerous fathers are for children. Hence the one sided perception in peoples minds. A quite deliberate and successful tatic by feminists. The same tactic is used with child abuse. 15% of abuse is sexual mostly commited by men. Of this fathers commit about 1% the rest by male relatives or others (never mentioned) giving the impression its fathers. The other 85% of abuse is physical or neglect.  Mothers commit 70% of this and others 15%.  Hence almost everthing you read about child abuse talks about sexual abuse where men are the majority and never talks about other abuse where mothers are by far the chief offenders. These tactics are highly successful for feminists ongoing onslaught of men.

    • Bev says:

      09:43am | 20/05/11

      KH says:07:51am | 20/05/11

      I’m yet to hear of a woman who kills her children being a ‘revenge’ attack - it is usually mental illness.
      Rubbish they kill for much the same reasons fathers do.  Mental illness is just a ploy used by feminists to excuse mothers actions in the majority of cases.

    • Kika says:

      10:04am | 20/05/11

      Erick, have you thought women also suffer from lost self esteem and depression after a divorce? My aunty was divorced a few years ago. Her self esteem is still shot to bits from it. Luckily her kids were grown up when it happened. She still sees herself as a loser because she doesn’t have a man and sees herself as the black sheep of the family.

      Difference is women know how to talk about it. My aunty will tell us how she feels, whereas a man would often not say “I feel like a bag of sh&t and completely worthless because I lost my wife”.

      Men bottle things up inside and because of the macho Australian bloke culture they would keep up the appearance of looking strong when really they are breaking down inside. FACT. Hence the bigger suicide rate.

    • TheRealDave says:

      10:08am | 20/05/11

      @KH, I might agree with you that more men kill out of ‘revenge’...as long as you can agree that more women kill their own children to ‘keep or attract new partners’.

      Neither makes the children any less dead.

    • Kika says:

      10:56am | 20/05/11

      Erick if men also didn’t give themselves such a bad name then things might not be so bad. We don’t just make these things up.

    • Kika says:

      10:59am | 20/05/11

      Infanticide = stems from primate instinct to either kill a rival male’s offspring, prevent yours from being taken by another rival, or to ensure you get another mating partner. Human moral code is wrong but if you ask a Chimp they would say it’s all perfectly normal behaviour. Genetic survival is the key - kids are just the byproduct of our DNA’s self interest to survive.

    • Muttley says:

      11:21am | 20/05/11

      Kika “we just dont make these things up”. That is the funniest thing i have seen all day. Funniest part is you probably believe it. Actually no. Not funny, just sad.

    • Kika says:

      11:47am | 20/05/11

      It is true. Just as you’ve probably got evidence against it, I have evidence for it.

    • Bev says:

      12:41pm | 20/05/11

      Kika says:11:47am | 20/05/11

      It is true. Just as you’ve probably got evidence against it, I have evidence for it.
      See my post above.  Womens bad behaviour is downplayed or hidden while mens is highlighted in neon lights. While it is true men commit more crime in a general sense we are talking about a specific crime here where women are much more in the frame. Or did the Australian Institute of Criminology get it wrong?  No its just another inconvenient truth feminists ignore. if you have evidence to the contrary on child murder I would like to see it. No didn’t think so.

    • Tom says:

      01:07pm | 20/05/11

      @Buzz, you affected supercilious patronising tone to Erick is sleazy debating. Come back when you have something of value to say.

    • n_dude says:

      01:25pm | 20/05/11

      To support Erick and the author’s argument here, why does the government have a ministry for the status of women and not one for men which deals with men’s issues? Why differentiate between the sexes?

    • loxy says:

      01:26pm | 20/05/11

      Mahhrat, it’s not often, if at all I agree with Erick but I’ll gladly give you some evidence of the social bias against men:
      1.  It is a women’s choice (men have no say) who she puts down as the father on her child’s birth certificate. The CSA takes whoever is listed on the birth certificate as the father as gospel and will immediately start charging that man child support, even if he denies he is the father. If the man listed on the birth certificate wishes to get a DNA test of the child, he must take the mother to court if she does not agree to the test – accruing legal costs that he may not be able to afford. If it turns out that the man listed on the birth certificate is not the biological father, the court does not ask the lying women to pay his legal fees, nor does the lying women get charged with fraud. EVIDENCE 1 of extreme bias against men.
      2.  Only a women can initiate and request child support payments to go through the Child Support Agency. If a man wishes to use the CSA he can not unless the women requests it. Evidence of bias yet again.
      3.  In all relationship breakdowns the women is considered the primary carer with regards to the children. This means she gets to dictate custody – in other words the man in the equation is at her mercy as to what she will allow him to have regarding custody. He can’t just enter her house and take his own children and state he is having full custody as the women can, he would be charged with kidnapping. Basically the only remedy the man has to get fair and equal custody to his own children, if the women will not agree to it, is to take the mother to court – costing a fortune as this article points out. Evidence yet again of bias.

      I could go on forever but I’m sure you get the point. I don’t and will never understand a parent killing their child but I do understand and sympathise greatly with men and what the family courts put them through. The laws in this country need to change, and change fast to allow men the same rights as women!

    • ;o) says:

      01:41pm | 20/05/11

      Erick I concur with you in your comet regarding - The main reason why men get unfair treatment is because of the dominant feminist mindset in those departments, as well as the dominant feminist lobby in politics and the media. The government’s proposed legislation to reduce men’s rights in the Family Court, mentioned in the article, is a direct result of feminist lobbying.

      A father in todays world =  NO rights when it comes to child support, family law and centrelink how would I know? I have dealt with each of these departments staffed mostly by women with a serious feminist hate male attitude. Ask why the male suicide rate is at a all time high, ask why so many fathers are denied less than 110 days per year access to their children, ask why are fathers are charged gross percentage rates on wages in child support formula, ask why 1 child costs more to keep than another. And the list goes on and on, yet at the same time many women today say its so hard to find a male to settle down with and have a family. Men the risk is not worth it.

    • Paul Horn says:

      02:38pm | 20/05/11

      Here you go KH read this http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2011/03/18/scott-richard-englart-horrific-death/
      Even though the childern were’nt hurt (they were found in nearby bushland thankfully) the womans total hatred for her ex drove her to drug him and then slit his throat!!!! No mental illness my dear, just sheer comtemptuous hatred which is much more common in the female than the male!

      The thing that makes me want to go absolutely postal though is the ABC interview with a womans rights activist the other night about the recent killing of a child by his father as reported above. This bitch was ranting on about how men see their spouses as objects to be owned, as their property, subject to their control etc etc but no question was ever raised as to the suffering this man was going through! Scum!!!

      Why do men take this shit? Just what is it about our macho efn culture that we take constant filth from womens activist groups and put up with it??? No other male culture in the world would tolerate this contempt!!

      But fat useless couch sitting footy watching anglo male fwits simply shrug their manly shoulders and do .... nothing!!!!   

      Western men bang on about their hairy chested sporting codes and yet are the most impotent when it comes to managing relationships with women. No other culture has become such a complete disaster zone for gender relations as Western Society. In fact our Government sanctions devastation in the degenerate name of equality!!  WTF???

      We have succumbed and sacrificaed our bollocks on the altar of fenminst hatred and bile. 

      In every other culture women enjoy far less freedoms and far more restrictions yet their relations with thier male counterparts is infinitely more harmonious adn happy. I’ve lived overseas and seen it.

      Gernain Greer said it best when she stated the two best contributions made by feminisism were
      1. The ability for women to walk destry marriage adn
      2. Never before has there been such hatred and contempt between the sexes than since militant rise of feminism!!!

    • Erick says:

      03:19pm | 20/05/11

      Adding to the evidence: If you scroll to Table 5.3 in this PDF (Page 76) report from the US Department of Health and Human Services, you will see that women perpetrate 53.8% of all child abuse. Yet we are constantly bombarded with propaganda about men as abusers.

    • Erick says:

      03:32pm | 20/05/11

      @KH - You want examples of mothers killing their children for revenge? A few minutes with Google will get you hundreds of results. Here’s just one:

      “A woman gassed her children to death in the family car so her ex-husband couldn’t have custody of them on Christmas Day, a court has been told.

      “The Queensland Supreme Court today was 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.

      “One month later, on November 22, the bodies of her eight-year-old boy and 10-year-old girl were found in the garage of their home at Sandstone Point, near Bribie Island.”

      There are many other examples. You are engaged in wilful denial.

    • Tom says:

      04:43pm | 20/05/11

      Kika, stereo-types? Let’s just start with your own, then we will try to change society ... “Men bottle things up inside and because of the macho Australian bloke culture they would keep up the appearance of looking strong when really they are breaking down inside. FACT. Hence the bigger suicide rate.”

      This whole article and debate has been about systematic factors that drive men to extremes, not just the “macho” way they handle things. Explaining it away in such comfortably detatched simplicity is not helping.

    • Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

      08:42pm | 20/05/11

      KH, doing a little social realigning of the truth? ? Are you really saying that women who kill their kids can’t help it because they are mentally ill, but men who kill are sane but evil? ? Is that what you want to covey? ? News flash dopey, ANYONE of EITHER gender who kills their kids is mentally ill

    • Fence sitter says:

      11:10pm | 20/05/11

      Lot of talk about ‘feminism’ when in its got little or nothing to do with it. The system was always patriarchal and now its swung back a bit. Mum’s have to jump through just as many hoops and they often held to ransom by their ex’s.

      Oh and there are more women’s refuges than men’s refuges for one good reason - women are the ones typically fleeing domestic violence, not men. I know there are exceptional cases of men suffering domestic violence but the overwhelming majority is women.

      I feel sorry for the dad’s who lose out, a friend was a typical example and rarely gets to see his kids, its really sad, but at least his kids are safe and being well cared for. He has a lifetime to build that relationship. Another friend fought for years to protect her children from the well educated, socially respectable, alcoholic mongrel who she’d married.

    • Oh dear says:

      10:22am | 21/05/11

      For some reason the first link posted didn’t work, hope this one is better. It’s an interesting report detailing why the few women who get locked up are so really really bad. A must read for our rampant misogynists on the Punch.

      http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/previous series/proceedings/1-27/~/media/publications/proceedings/16/george.ashx

    • no entitlements says:

      01:07pm | 21/05/11

      So the issue here is men misbehaving. I lived with this eerie experience of waking up at night to find my husband standing in the girl’s bedroom at night more than once. To hear my children tell me that they woke up thinking it was a nightmare with someone grabbing them but oh no it was OK it was only daddy. To have him hold my screaming three year old telling me that it wasn’t up to me what happened to my kids, they were half his. And he was entitled to .. whatever.

      Well boys, actually there’s no entitlement with children. There’s just responsibilities and duties. And if you perform well, as a bonus maybe the kids will be grateful and treat you well in your old age.

      But entitlements, no, only in your head. Zip zilch zero, none with your children. And if you misbehave, you’re out. That is so that we keep our children safe from predators and lunies and just simply bad guys.

    • Taking back says:

      01:14pm | 21/05/11

      So when we were still talking, before the children and I had to go into hiding, I asked him, why a guy would ever want to harm his own child?
      And he couldn’t believe that I didn’t get that. “To take back what he gave her of course,” was the response.

    • Muriel says:

      04:34pm | 21/05/11

      Bev, said, “The Australian Institute of Criminology reported for the year 2006/2007 that 22 children were murdered.  11 by mothers 6 by fathers and 5 by step fathers. “

      Unfortunately, in Australia, quoting ABS and/or AIC figures does not capture those children (and women) are are murdered by partners or ex-partners who then commit suicide.  The figures from official sources are taken from completed court cases around the nation.  Once an offender is found guilty of a crime, then the victims are recorded as homicide victims.  If the offender has killed himself, there is no court case, hence no recording of victims. 

      Therefore, the stats are skewed.  Until a national Domestic Homicide Review Team is put in place, like the one in Ontario Canada, Australia’s collective stats will never be a true reflection of what is happening in Australian society.

    • acotrel says:

      08:24am | 22/05/11

      With KH So a bloke who throws his daughter off the West Gate Bridge is NOT mentally ill? Anyone who could do that must be troppo!

    • Laurenzo says:

      01:01pm | 22/05/11

      your comment re media bias is demonstrably untrue Erick. In recent years there have been several media frenzies surrounding women like Keli Lane, Kathleen Folbigg (?) and two or three other female perpetrators of infanticide whose names escape me. And if men lack the social support systems that women have might I suggest that it is the responsibility of men to foster those systems in the first places as women do. They won’t spontaneously appear around you once things go pear-shaped.

    • Mee says:

      03:40pm | 23/05/11

      Loxy.. I would hate to tell you but you are completely wrong with regards to a couple of your points.  I cannot comment on the DNA but with regard to your other points I will tell you this… When we split my ex husband took off with my daughter and refused to let me see her.  The day after he took off with her he was in contact with the CSA and requesting child support payment which were enforced straight away.  The CSA did not care that he had basically “kidnapped” my child and was not allowing me access.  He was living at home with his parents paying no rent, no bills nothing whilst I was trying to pay rent as well as HIS debts.  All that they saw was that he had full custody of the child and that I should have to pay him maintenance.  They also did not and still do not take into account each persons circumstances (ie living arrangements etc).  I then had to spend in excess of $10,000 in legal fees to intitate the court process as legal aid will not fund for anything unless you have been apart for more than six weeks.  He prolonged this process for as long as he could as his aim was to financially destroy my (to which he would have had it not been for my parents).  The CSA refused to hold off on enforcement of the payments even though I could prove to them that we were going through the court process and that he was intentionally prolonging the process.  Even now that we have custody sorted on a 50/50 basis, because I earn more money than him I still have to pay him a weekly amount.  Again, my outgoings in rent etc are far more than his due to the fact that he moved me away from family and friends whilst we were together and I am now unable to move closer to them to get some support or be able to rent two rooms from friends (as he is doing) as he refuses to negotiate on where our child should go to school.  The system IN NO WAY has bias against fathers.  The only time that the court will NOT allow a father access to their child is unless there is proven PHYSICAL abuse in the family household.

    • Ausfire says:

      10:26pm | 23/05/11

      @ Oh dear says: 09:36am | 21/05/11

      Recently I gained a curiosity in this same matter, and as such I researched it. The simple answer is bias within male judges - Women get a lesser or suspended sentence where the male gets gaol time.

      Interestingly enough, when the judge was female, the sentencing of the females were almost inline with the sentencing of the males for the same crime. I guess we need more female judges to get equality in sentencing.

    • Stats says:

      06:03am | 24/05/11

      @Oh dear says:

      “According to one report there are 780 women in our prisons compared to 13,500 men.”

      Some of this could be the sexism in the law. Take the example where a parent kills a 6 month old child. For mothers it is called Infanticide and she gets a year in jail or treatment for PND. For a father its often just seen as murder and he gets say 15 years.

      That means men are punished 15 times harsher than women FOR THE SAME CRIME solely because our society make up excuses for women.

      Doing a little maths then if there were 800 women and 800 men committed this same crime then at any one time there would be 800 women in jail and 12,000 men in jail. So the figures could reflect on how men are viewed in society compared to women instead of some evil gene that only men have as you try to suggest.

      Perhaps when there is true equality between the sexes, rather than the feminist version that relies on mathematical manipulation, and society treated men and women exactly the same then there will be equal numbers of each gender in prison.

      Ever notice how many interim DVOs remove contact between children and fathers? I bet there are a handful, at most, cases each year where judges would even contemplate banning contact between mothers and their children without testing evidence first and weighing up the effects of banning contact against those of the “maternal bond”. However it appears to happen thousands of times a year for fathers just from reports from mothers alone.

      There are even programs to ensure those mothers in prison with babies make sure they have time to bind with their children. No similar programs exist for men. I guess either none of those thousands of men have children - or could it be that we just live in a sexist society where fathers are seen as unimportant to children?

      The court system places a great emphasis on the maternal bond but thinks virtually nothing of the paternal bond.

      The sexist ideologies that pervade legal decisions and send the message that fathers are bad for children is astounding. It is a wonder more fathers don’t take the messages the courts and society gives them and act as bad as they are constantly told they are.

      I would agree with Eckersley. Why would men feel they belong in a society that automatically treats them as evil without any evidence yet make excuses for women that do the same things?

      What is a great tragedy is that some people (yes many feminists) use terms like equality yet trot out statistics that show how badly society treats men and instead of helping me use them to persecute men.

    • Zoe says:

      06:42pm | 24/05/11

      @Mee, my sister went through almost the exact situation as you. She almost gave up as she just didnt want to sink as low as her ex in court. He told some unbelievable lies, both in court and worst of all to their daughter. Who teaches a 2 year old to say “mummy’s a slut”? As she got older he would cry at the drop of a hat if she wanted to go to a friends house instead of spending time with him. He has caused his daughter incredible emotional damage. She attempted suicide as a teen before cutting ties with her father and getting back on track.
      I have seen similar circumstances where mothers almost brainwash their kids against their fathers and start fights in the street and abuse him at pick up and drop off to the point where he gives in and moves away, leaving her with the house, kids, and maintenance payments because he doesnt want to leave the kids homeless.
      I’d like to see continued support and assesment of kids. Too often the parent who who is willing to “Win at any cost - including the kids emotional health”, get everything, because the “better” parent isnt willing to sacrifice the kids and would rather walk away and suffer themselves.
      I dont believe this is really an argument about men vs women. Some parents are just A…holes regardless of gender.

    • Alan says:

      05:50pm | 28/05/11

      Erick I could not say it better . Women get brain wash by certain groups and think of them selves no one else . If guys had the same rules as women but that is asking to much.

    • Carz says:

      07:14am | 20/05/11

      Barry Williams from the Lone Fathers Association says: “There are no men’s refuges at all in Australia.”

      This is wrong! Dads in Distress run a refuge for men in the Maitland NSW area. Should there be more refuge/crisis accommodation specifically for men? Of course there should. But the reason the focus has been on women is because, in general, they have less economic resources when fleeing an abusive marriage. If they have been a stay at home mum then often the only money they have coming in is the Family Tax Benefits, which amounts to stuff all. It takes time to get things like Parenting Payment and Newstart organised. I know that for myself to get Austudy after my marriage ended it took over a month. Yet my ex was pulling in a nearly 6 figure income and was able to afford to keep up his normal lifestyle.

      There is no doubt that the Family Law system leads to frustrations on both sides of a marriage breakdown. And both men and women suffer socially too. But the one thing that must be remembered is that in all cases of violence there is large element of choice and free will. You can choose to take murderous revenge against you ex and your kids or you can choose not to. The majority of men choose not to. The majority of men are decent human beings. But that small minority who do choose violence can’t walk away from the fact that it was a choice. Nobody forced them to do it.

    • Erick says:

      07:59am | 20/05/11

      “The majority of men choose not to. The majority of men are decent human beings. But that small minority who do choose violence can’t walk away from the fact that it was a choice. Nobody forced them to do it.”

      And the same applies to the equal numbers of women who make the same choices. This issue encompasses both sexes, even though most of the public attention is focused on males.

    • Sony B Goode says:

      10:01am | 20/05/11

      Everyone has a breaking point. The system fueled by unscrupulous lawyers will push men beyond anything that a decent human being should be exposed to.

      There is no family “court” it is a welfare department. There is no possibility of having grievience heard. Under this welfare system men have been turned into silent financial slaves.

      Lawyers know how to play the game and are the only winners. Judges ignore the plight of men and claim to enforce the “law”. There is no natural justice, there is no presumption of innocence. There is no way to be heard and no way to escape.

      Choice doesn’t enter the picture when you push someone to such extremes. When someone snaps, rational choice has left the picture. The injustice of the system pushes many men to snap or suicide.

    • Carz says:

      10:21am | 20/05/11

      @ Sony, you assume it is always women using the Family Court to torment men but from what I have seen amongst my friends the reverse is true at least as often. The 2006 changes to the Family Law Act made life an absolute minefield for women trying to escape from abusive partners. Send the kids to access with an abusive father and get caned by DoCS, friends and family for exposing them to abuse, refuse to send them and get caned by the Family Court. Try to be heard about issues of abuse and get branded as an “unfriendly” parent and risk having the abuser getting more access. Try to arrange safe hand-overs for access and get told you are over-reacting. Then they get to live with the constant fear that their ex will refuse to hand the kids over after a visit, meaning yet another trip to court to get a recovery order issued, which does not happen instantly. Or that child support will be witheld as a way to punish them.

      Choice always enters the picture. You can choose to be a grown up and play by the rules, regardless of how much you believe they are biased against you, or you can choose to use violence in the belief that might equals right. There is never an excuse for beating the crap out of someone, or killing them. And there is NEVER any good reason to kill a defenceless child. Not even being denied access to them.

    • Sony B Goode says:

      10:50am | 20/05/11

      Carz I don’t assume it’s always the women, but it’s the vast majority of women backed or pushed by money grabbing lawyers. It’s a sexist law worded in such a way to exploit the usual distribution of responsibility in a family where natural justice has been expunged, presumption of innocence has been expunged and where there is no forum to be heard.

      Sure sometimes you get a women who is the bread winner and the man the stay at home mum.  Then the tables can be turned but what percentage of society is that?

      I am not excusing the end result of people killing themselves or spouses or children, what I am highlighting is the system drives people towards these outcomes without any compassion.

    • Cat says:

      10:54am | 20/05/11

      well my ex is no silent financial slave, government decrees he does not have to pay any child support since he has chosen to remain unemployed long term (and yes, in his case it has been a choice) so he does not even contribute the minimum handful of coins per week towards his disabled son. Personally I’m not feeling like the system is totally scewed my way at all. The anger isn’t enough to make me viollent towards any person, but oh man I could so take a baseball bat to the endless amounts of STUFF he continues to buy while I approach charities to help fund specialist services and assistive technology for our child.

    • Tom says:

      01:01pm | 20/05/11

      @Carz, I call your sleazy “Straw Man” argument. “there is NEVER any good reason to kill a defenceless child” ... No-one ever claimed there was. No-one here justifies anything whether it be a man or a woman killing the child.

      The point at issue is the role played by the Family court in triggering a nutter or vile creep into doing something they might not otherwise do.

      Naturally, the Family Court are in denial, however I believe any study would show huge inherent bias against men in the demographics of the court, the Child Support office and Legal Aid lawyers whose actions trigger that nutter or vile creep to do something.

      It amazes me that people can read a piece of fiction such as the Chant of Jimmy Blacksmith and preach on the basis of humiliation and bias, yet when those factors are pointed out in a real world context, they go into denial.

      @KH, no person who kills their children is mentally sane, man or woman. To imply that men are bad when they do it whereas women are somehow having some (woman exclusive) difficulties and therefore cannot be held responsible is bigotry at its worst.

    • Kika says:

      01:04pm | 20/05/11

      Erick - it’s because when we hear stories of men being violent against their wives and children it reinforces the sterotype we all have in our heads that all males are capable of being violent wife bashing child killers.  That’s how our culture sees males - strong, violent, dominating.

      When we hear stories of women doing the same thing - killing their kids or acting violently against their husbands and boyfriends it contradicts everything we believe women intrinsically are - soft, feminine, caring, loving to their kids etc. So we rationalise this behaviour in our head as being ‘mental’ because there’s no way we can think of women being purposefully violent without being mentally afflicted. It’s just assumed all men are capable of violence and sxual aggression that we ignore the possibility that they also have mental issues.

      Likewise, when we hear stories of domestic violence against men we can’t handle it because that too goes against the grain of what culturally we think of as ‘manly’. We don’t equate characteristics such as weakness, passivism or emotional pain with men. That’s why there isn’t as much attention drawn to this because it’s socially awkward to believe that men are capable of being like this.

      Hence why women get off lightly on allegations of rape (how could she have been aggressive? Why wasn’t she at home baking cookies? She must have been mad or encouraged to do it by that bad boy). It’s sad, but it happens.

    • Fred says:

      01:06pm | 20/05/11

      Carz, the use of the broad brush abused women defence is crap. A cause of marriage break-ups survey I read a year ago can easily be read that 80% of the excuses are for selfish, lazy and childish reasons. The system then actively supports the betrayal of marriage vows as seen by the massive increase in divorces since the system and parasitic lawyer have enabled it. As to the killing of the kids and suicide, yes tragic, but what would be your reaction be if your child was being held in a hostile environment by a treacherous ex-wife, the system did not do anything to stop the abuse and the ex-wife blocked your access or made it extremely difficult when you were near the children by here irrational/psychotic behaviour which she then blamed you for. You also know that the only action left to you of removing the children from her would result in you going to jail and the abuse on the children continuing when she gets them back. Seems to me like the guy was damned which ever choice he made.

    • Tom says:

      01:37pm | 20/05/11

      @Kika, your use of the royal “we” worries me. Who do you define as we? Erick is “we”. Erick is not outside “we”.

      Your explanation of male and female stereotyping in our society isn’t too far off the mark. Like many others, I am conditioned to accept the “sugar and spice and all things nice” stuff and go into denial when a woman kills a child. It shocks me as I do not percieve women that way.

      Where you let yourself down is by saying .... “It’s sad, but it happens.” It sounds too much like you are pretty comfortable with stereotyping.

      Kika, lazy stereotyping and its resultant acceptance of bias against, vilification of and humiliation of males through the system is playing a big part in children dying a violent death (and male suicide). It is nothing to be comfortable about at all.

    • Get Real says:

      03:08pm | 20/05/11

      @ Carz.
      “Choice always enters the picture. You can choose to be a grown up and play by the rules, ” That is so true. And then wonder why the men finally snap because the lying cheating so and so doesn’t play by the rules and refuses access despite the court order, and the police say there is nothing they can do except suggest you take it back to court, knowing full well that you no longer have the resources to do so. And if you sell the car or refinance against whatever possessions you have been left in the settlement, you know that she’ll have free legal aid and can afford to use every delaying tactic under the sun while you are bled financially and emotionally dry. I’m sure there are a fair majority of women who don’t use access to the children as a tool to further hurt their partners after separation. But from what I hear from everyone I know who has recently separated, there is a good sized percentage of women who gain great pleasure out of making their ex suffer through denying access or trying to turn the children against them with venomous BS in their (almost always) longer custody periods.

    • Erick says:

      03:26pm | 20/05/11

      Kika, the stereotyping of men as hateful and violent is actively promoted by feminists in the media, education system, government and legal system. It is not just a random occurrence, but part of a constant campaign of vilification the began some fifty years ago, and is bearing its bitter fruit today.

    • Kika says:

      03:27pm | 20/05/11

      @Tom - I agree. It shouldn’t be acceptable. But how do you change intrinsic cultural values that are ingrained in people’s heads? Slowly things change over time I suppose. And the men’s lobby should be up there doing what they are doing - campaigning for men’s voices to be heard and that the stereotypes we have in our heads are wrong.

    • Kika says:

      03:36pm | 20/05/11

      But in turn Erick, we stereotype women as being the opposite. And they clearly aren’t! Does it work in the misandrist agenda to do so? Yes definitely because it makes women unaccountable for their pathethic behaviour.  I agree with you, but to the point where the stereotype exists for both genders.

    • BK says:

      07:00pm | 20/05/11

      Just picking up on a comment made by Cat, I know of a few cases where the seperated dad decided that he was better off on the dole. I would like to know the economy wide costs of the current child support system. I suspect that the number of dads who drop out of the workforce or cut back on overtime would be huge.

    • Flavour of the day says:

      11:38am | 21/05/11

      @Tom, some people are very much outside ‘we.’ Particularly those who incite hatred against women and against all common sense and against all statistics blurt out figures which only exists in their head. Yet demanding to be taken seriously by society despite their inanities. And sadly some equally deluded beings listen to and follow these women haters. Certainly flavouring the Punch today.

      How do the haters always manage to get off topic? Guys kill their kids and yes why don’t we blame the women for this?
      How can we help these baby killers any better? Get real.

      I’m all for keeping kids alive. If that means that people who call themselves dad can’t see them, that’s good by me. I’ve had to protect mine for way too many years to have any sympathy left for people not in control of their emotions.

    • Erick says:

      11:57am | 21/05/11

      @Flavour - Clearly you have chosen to ignore the real statistics, posted many times on this topic, which show that women are just as bad (and just as good) as men.

      Why do you hate men so much, in such an irrational way?

    • off topic as usual erick says:

      01:00pm | 21/05/11

      The issue we’re dealing with here is guys killing their kids as revenge. To start pointing the finger at women is completely off topic. But pointing the finger at women clearly identifies the misogynists amongst us. It’s nice to be clear about that.

    • Reggie says:

      07:47pm | 21/05/11

      BK; “Just picking up on a comment made by Cat, I know of a few cases where the seperated dad decided that he was better off on the dole.”

      It is certainly a method of passive resistance that rebounds once again upon the children and for which the ex-wife must take some responsibility. Going bush or living rough is only another form of depression impacting upon men who feel they have lost everything worth working for and is another hidden cost of marriage break-down.

      Is it any wonder that some are slow to commit to a serious relationship.

    • Scott says:

      10:53pm | 21/05/11

      @ Cat.  Its not just the men who won’t work so as to minimise their child support obligations. I have 40% care of my boys and their mother, a lawyer by trade, continues to work only 2 days a week despite the boys being in grade 3 and 5 now.  Her reason - the effective “tax rate” on her extra salary by the decreased child support I would be required to pay, plus the reduced Centrelink benefits didnt make it worth her while to earn more.  I applied to CSA for a reassessment under Reason 8 (earning capacity) but the case officer and subsequent review officer (both women BTW) disallowed the reassessment on the basis she hadnt reduced her hours and that her capacity to work more than 2 days a week was “unproven”. Not that they even bothered to get it assessed.  My point is, income minimisation to reduce personal contributions to the costs of the children is not restricted to any one gender.

    • Ausfire says:

      12:29am | 24/05/11

      @Carz
      Barry Williams is right! There is NO men’s refuges in Australia. Phil from DIDSS Maitland has done extraordinary work just to get the crises accommodation for men off the ground. BUT, the funding comes from donations unlike women’s refuges that are government funded.

      As for women having less economics resources than men fleeing an abusive relationship - you are WRONG. Men are in EXACTLY the same position when fleeing an abusive female partner. You are only relating to your experiences and not the facts.

      @Cat
      If the CSA is involved and your ex is not paying child support, then you do not have sole care arrangements. IF you do have sole care arrangements (which I doubt if your ex pays 0), then the CSA would require he pays the current rate of just over $30 per month - based on ability to self support.

      @off topic as usual erick
      It isn’t off topic, but the opposite of the same coin.
      How can it be justified when a Father cracks and kills the child he get’s 30+ years, and when a mother does it she gets this quote from the magistrate “Where justice ends, mercy begins” and time already served!. HOW is that fair? Justice is supposed to be blind, not biased.

      This topic has been of interest to me for many years now, as to the inequality in justice, sentencing terms (is at all) and (biased) media reporting, to name a few. I have a large folio of many (Australian) cases now and the ratio of offenders of mothers is more than (biological) fathers. So why isn’t it a huge issue when the mother kills, but is when it’s the father? Society bias.

    • S.L says:

      07:19am | 20/05/11

      As a separated father I feel I’m qualified to comment.
      I can see myself taking a Mick Fox course of action if things went pear shaped but not in my wildest dreams could I imagine doing to my children (and myself) what Paul Rogers did.
      If it came to the position where I wasn’t allow access to my children I’d just live in hope they’d try to track me down in their adult years. Even if they were calling another guy dad!
      I’m lucky I have unlimited access to my kids and the way I keep a tab on how their mother spends my maintenance on them is a simple one. I gave her a credit card. I know exactly where my money is going!

    • Mahhrat says:

      08:06am | 20/05/11

      I’m with you on that, S.L.

      When my own marriage broke down I thought long and hard about what was likely to cause an argument.  It almost always revolved around the finances.

      Because I was “lucky” enough to have a stable job, I simply gave everything to her in exchange for reasonable and fair visiting rights.

      Saying that, I know too many fathers who, as a result of stupid arguments over whatever, have lost access to their kids to women who have lied directly to the face of the judge about how their kids are being raised.

      Child abuse is denying children their parents, and it’s happening too often.

    • S.L says:

      08:58am | 20/05/11

      Mahhrat since September I’ve lost my relationship, my business (to pay my ex out), my home (which I owned outright for the same reason) and saw my father suffer a major stroke which has left him bed ridden and a family which is blaming my domestic problems for his collapse. All I have now is an old ex taxi as transport, a rented butterbox for a home and a new TV. Every stick of furniture is a hand me down, even this computer. If I’m not a candidate for doing something drastic I don’t know who is! But I’m looking on the bright side. It was worth every cent to get rid of the b*tch!

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:07am | 20/05/11

      And therein lies the rub gents. In order to have reasonable access to his kids a bloke has to give up everything. And still that can be taken away from him on a vindictive whim at any time.

      It is sobering stuff for any father, even if his relationship with his missus is rock solid.

    • TChong says:

      09:17am | 20/05/11

      SL - sounds pretty shiteful how the extended family( my assumption) seems to be blaming everything on you.
      I know it may be little, if any consulation, but very unlikely your actions would have caused yur dads “stroke” - thses things happen regardless.
      Tell that to what ever part of the family is trying to burden you with such an unwarranted burden of guilt. They are wrong.

    • S.L says:

      10:01am | 20/05/11

      I let it go over my head Chongy. It’s a sister thats the lead protagonist there. Taking over dads affairs has been my focal point since January. Besides you read about so many who make, lose and remake their fortunes I’m hoping even though I by no means had a fortune but right now I’m at the bottom of the cycle!
      Hard work never hurt anybody and after I clear up a few more things hopefully I’m on the road back up.

    • Mahhrat says:

      10:22am | 20/05/11

      @S.L., It was 11 years ago for me, but I moved into a 1 bedroom flat in a crummy lot with a 20 year old car for company.

      I didn’t have a business or my own place to lose, so I guess my decision was made easier that I only lost about $30k rather than as much as you have, so I dunno what I’d have done in that situation.

      As to your own situation mate, it will always hurt to have limited access to your kids - it causes me pain every day that I only see my gorgeous one for 3 nights a fortnight - but the money you spent was the best money you’ll EVER spend.

      All I can suggest to you is that it’s fine to be down for a while, get yourself slowly back on your feet and try to move forward. 

      Remember though, that it’s better to swallow your pride in the short term and bitch up, because the kids are more important than your ego.  The ex will use your ego against you in these situations - we do not have the ability to manipulate like they do, so just don’t play their games.  Be reasonable and be firm, and most of all get legal counsel as soon as you feel you need it - don’t let her draw you into ANY arguments, simply walk away.

    • Kika says:

      11:03am | 20/05/11

      SL and Mahrat - if you don’t mind me asking, what were the reasons for your divorce?

    • S.L says:

      11:06am | 20/05/11

      Mahhrat I know where you are coming from there. I think pride has suffered a lot especially with my business. I sold it to a (friendly) competitor and I’m leasing it back off them. My loyal staff carry on as usual.
      My priority now for myself is buying another home. As I’m just on the right side of 50 I’m not much interested in taking over or buying back my business. Just somewhere to retire in is my goal. My kids go to private schools so (hopefully) their success in the future keeps me going.
      As far as another relationship? The cue is in the rack!

    • Cloud Strife says:

      12:02pm | 20/05/11

      This baffles me that so many women take men to town so they can see their kids. My Mum and Dad had an amicable divorce, and Dad had custody because he was keeping the family home and they wanted us to have as little disruption as possible.

    • Suzanne says:

      12:30pm | 20/05/11

      ” I simply gave everything to her in exchange for reasonable and fair visiting rights.”

      That makes me so mad. Neither party should have to give up everything to the other in order to maintain a relationship with their children.
      If my husband and I were to split up tomorrow it wouldn’t even occur to me to stop or restrict access to the kids. I would hope tht no matter what he had done to me I would be mature enough not to punish my children for our failure to make our marriage work. It disgusts me that some women think it’s ok to use their children as pawns to get back at their ex-partner.

      One of my husbands friends split up with his wife. He had an affair, she found out and obviously very hurt and betrayed by this she’s tried to wreck his career (she stopped this when she realised it would affect his salary and thus his ability to pay the mortgage) and only allows him to see his kids when she needs a babysitter.
      Women like her are why people like Erick assume we’re all b*tches who hate men.
      I whole heartedly agree that the family law system needs a complete overhaul, there are bad mothers out there just like there are bad fathers so each case needs to be individually assessed to determine what’s best for the child.

    • Luke says:

      12:48pm | 20/05/11

      @S.L and Mahrat - you two are great, you should actually join a mens health group and show that it can be done, to go to the bottom and actually have the spirit to fight back to the top.  You would be a great example to other men, which we need.  We all need mentors and people to look up and you could provide that to other men in their time of need.  I have a great partner and hope that it will be ok, but if the worse was to happen i hope i can have the same attitude you guys do.

    • Mahhrat says:

      01:17pm | 20/05/11

      @Suzanne et al, I should be fair to my ex, the split was acrimonius but we never let it get in the way of our love for our daughter.  We both have credit for that.  I realised very early that demonstrating the anger I felt at the situation wasn’t going to do anything but make me feel like an idiot.

      As to what happened, well there are two sides to each story and I’m too much of a gentleman to get into that, but let’s just say that in the end I lost the ability to trust my wife, and besides, it was quite clear she wanted to be out, so I let her go.

      Aside from that, I appreicate the good wishes, so cheers.

      My only other point (for an online blog anyway) is the way funds are split up is fundamentally skewed. It is based on the levels of care and levels on input into the marriage.  I fear that this formula fails to take into account the focus of the time spent.

      Having spend 11 years raising my daughter only 2 or 3 nights a fortnight, I still find myself strongly able to influence her values and education.  This is, of course, a wonderful thing, but it highlights that just because a day might work 10 hours a day, doesn’t mean that in the brief time he gets to spend with his kids (compared to, say, a stay at home mum), doesn’t mean his contribution to their ongoing welfare is any less.

      The courts seem to feel that the stay-at-home parent be entitled to a larger sum because of the “ongoing care” based solely on the amount of hours, rather than what’s done during that time.

    • loxy says:

      01:30pm | 20/05/11

      Mahhrat, I know many a man who has done what you did, i.e. give his ex all the assets and pay above what the CSA requires simply to keep the peace and have regular access to the kids. While I think that’s very noble, if the system worked and wasn’t biased against men, you and many other men wouldn’t and shouldn’t need to do this in the first place.

    • Bev says:

      01:48pm | 20/05/11

      Suzanne says:12:30pm | 20/05/11
      Women like her are why people like Erick assume we’re all b*tches who hate men.
      I think you find if you check Erik has stated many time he doesn’t hate women only feminists and the 30% of women who engage in these tactics.

    • Mahhrat says:

      01:49pm | 20/05/11

      @loxy, and I’ve spent time over the last 10 years doing exactly that quietly and from the sidelines.

      But my daughter is the most important person in my life, so I’m never going to act in any way that reduces my ability to help raise her.  I’m lucky I’ve got an ex wife who I’m able to be civil around. 

      While I agree with you - the system sucks - it is still the case that many men allow themselves to be drawn into bitter, angry fights which they can’t ever win.  “I can’t help myself” is not valid in these situations - you need to put your children ahead of winning the argument.

      I won simply because I’m a better man now than I was back then.  That’s the only judgment that makes any sense.

    • Tbowler says:

      02:24pm | 20/05/11

      S.L - Chin up buddy. I feel for you.

      I deal with the Family and Federal Magistrates Court (as one of those bloodsucking parasitic lawyers) a huge amount. The problem as I’ve always seen it is not with the Judges or Lawyers but the inherent bias in the single-experts and FAR writers.

      Without being too specific an instance in which there was alleged sexual abuse by a father- found to be (by Crown Prosecutors, the ICL and a special expert paid for at a huge sum by us) falsified by the mother resulted in the mother remaining the primary caregiver because it was too hard on the child to spend time with a man she hadn’t seen for three years (while he was charged and bailed over the rape). It’s ridiculous.

      I would suggest keeping records of every cent you pay, every text that is sent between you and all and each handover as well as every time you have spent with the kids. If they make an ‘I love daddy’ painting- keep it filed. If the ex uses the credit card at the pub- keep the bill.

      If this gets really nasty (and weight of statisitcs suggests it eventually will) or she gets a new man who you believe is usurping your role with the children then make an application for full custody with fortnightly weekends with her. If your smart and keep everything, don’t lie or cover up any dirty laundry to the Court and play completely scrupulously then you’ll likely win (and get costs if she lies or makes any false allegations- surprisingly common stuff).

      The reason family law is so expensive is because people are constantly covering things up and making mild mis-statement as they are so worried about what is at stake. The problem being that the court might not find a convicted drink-driver for example unfit to have full custody but if you mislead the court they damned sure will find you an ‘unimpressive witness’ (a liar) and the only way out is for your counsel to make a shit-ton of applications/claims to exclude evidence and save your case at a phenomonal cost…

      Best of luck to you anyway mate. I realy feel for people who are chewed up by the system. I also have to express some admiration at your happiness to eschew money etc in the interests of avoiding the bitterness and hatefulness that so often results from a marriage breakdown.

    • Erick says:

      03:54pm | 20/05/11

      @Bev - “I think you find if you check Erik has stated many time he doesn’t hate women only feminists and the 30% of women who engage in these tactics.”

      Thank you, Bev, that’s exactly right. Except perhaps that I think it might be even less than 30% - but I have no reliable figures,

      Feminists operate by using lies - and one of these lies is the falsehood that anyone who criticises the political ideology of feminism, is somehow “attacking women”. Feminism and women are not the same thing.

    • S.L says:

      09:12am | 21/05/11

      My apologies everyone in the middle of this discussion I had to go to work. Thanks to everyone who replied.
      Mahhrat keep on keeping on buddy!
      Kika I have 1 word for you…... itsnunayabizness!
      It’s all a mindset Luke. If you let it get to you it will!
      Tbowler thanks for the words. As far as the credit card is concerned it has a very low limit and she’s a pretty responsible mum anyway.
      Suzanne unfortunately many, many women are like your friends wife. They can’t see the forest for the trees and even though she was in the right in her case many would still try to ruin what is effectively still a meal ticket!

    • b says:

      07:39am | 23/05/11

      Obvious why that relationship didn’t work out.

      Don’t get me wrong - I am a total feminist and think the current system is shamefully degrading for women.  It tells women that they are incapable of supporting themselves and their children without input from government or a man. 

      End all payments to parents for children.  It is not helping anyone.  It promotes a welfare mentality, people who could work not working because it is not financially viable - how is that healthy for anyone? 

      It was predicted when child payments were introduced that it would be a disaster for children.  That prediction has been proven correct.

    • Dana says:

      11:52am | 24/05/11

      @ b; my mum worked full time, had a mortgage and an ex who paid exactly what he had to and no 50% rebate on child care.  She was below the poverty line.  When Bob Hawke famously said: “no Australian child will be living in poverty” her welfare payments went up and she was finally above the poverty line and was able to eat steak with my brother and I instead of her usual cheese sandwich.  My respect for her is immense and not once did she say anything against my Dad or deny him anything - that’s different now but we are no longer easily manipulated children.  Welfare is there for a reason. 
      @ Mahrat: you are so right about not being pulled into arguments, women are master manipulators and for you to be so reasonable and logical is just awesome.
      @ S.L I wish you all the best

    • Paul C says:

      08:09am | 20/05/11

      The sooner society (and the law) get rid of the assumption that women automatically make better parents the better.  Mothers get too many automatic rights, when quite often it is the father who can provide a more stable and safe environment for the child, especially when mum gets a new love interest - trust me experienced it first hand.  I know of two young children who would still be around today had the magistrate even bothered to listen to the fathers side of the story. The law needs to be reviewed - too many mistakes are made and too many young lives are being lost.

    • Carz says:

      08:25am | 20/05/11

      There is no assumption under the law that women make better parents. The assumption under the law is for shared parenting, regardless of the safety of the children. That is the issue that needs to be tackled. The whole men versus women thing is a load of crap if we aren’t looking after the safety of the children first and foremost.

    • John says:

      08:43am | 20/05/11

      The law must be changed to properly punish false claims of child sexual molestation, false claims of child beating, false VROs, and the deliberate withholding of children from the other parent. These claims are usually, though not exclusively, made by women against men, and I am certain that the main motivation is greed. Because the more a person can alienate and exclude the other parent, the more they are rewarded with a greater share of assets at settlement, and greater ongoing child support. I feel that spite also plays a part in these claims.
      Follow the money!

    • Erick says:

      08:48am | 20/05/11

      Carz, the law may seem to be worded in a gender-neutral way, but in practice it is applied in an extremely discriminatory way. Sony B Goode’s comment, below, provides examples.

    • KH says:

      08:49am | 20/05/11

      Things lean towards the mother because in most cases, they are the primary carer.  They are the ones who work part time or reduced hours, or not at all.  They are the ones who call in sick when their kid is sick.  They are the one who do the cooking, the cleaning, run the kids around and often the rest of the household chores as well. 

      The reigning paradigm is that child rearing and domestic duties are ‘womens work’ - and its usually the mother that makes the career sacrifices and takes the lesser job, or stays at home to do it.  Men seem happy to go with that, but then when things turn against them, they complain.  Well, you can’t have it both ways - you can’t be surprised that the court then says the mother should remain the primary carer.  Change the paradigm and you will change the outcomes.  Thats why men should be supporting fighting for workplace equality so that either parent can take time out and it doesn’t cost them their career.  If everyone does it, there can be no discrimination, can there?

      I know of a couple recently divorced where the father has got custody, because he gave up his low paying job to stay at home, whilst the ex wife kept her six figure job that she loved.  He was the primary carer and did all the domestic stuff, so there was virtually no argument that the two little ones lived with him.  She is not too happy about it, but she accepts that he was there all the time and she wasn’t. She even said she knew it would go this way if the marriage ever broke down.  The primary carer will nearly always get custody.  That is how it goes.

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:17am | 20/05/11

      Why is it always a ‘sacrifice’ woemn make to stay home?

      I’d love to make a ‘sacrifice’ to stay home with my kids - but guess what? I bloody can’t! Bills need to be paid, the mortgage needs to be paid, food needs to be paid for, transport needs to be paid for, school fees need to be paid for, clothes need to be paid for etc I don’t work 9-5. With our increasingly ‘connected’ world and me being in IT I need to be contactable and ready to go 24/7 incase of server outages, stupid morons who can’t enter passwords or who delete crap they shouldn’t. My mobile is always on me, I can connect into systems no matter where I am. My ‘sacrifice’ is spending all this time at work to provide everythign possible to my family. I’d swap it in an instant to spend more time with them, but I can’t.

      Why is one ‘sacrifice’ given more weight than another? And whats this ‘Primary Care Giver’ crap? When I get home I don’t jsut put my bloody feet up and ignore everyone. I cook, I organisae school lunches, help with homework, take them to soccer training, play computer games with them, showed them how to use YouTube so they can rock out to Miley Cyrus and the Beiber whenever they want, take out the rubbish, mow the lawns, do dishes (sometimes) and all that. Why aren’t I a Primary Care giver as well??

      Why is it that in order to get any type of ‘quality Access’ with my kids in the even tI am ever unfortunate enough to break up wth my missus, why must I realistically lose everything for decent access? And worst of all, even after losing everything, I can still be denied access to my kids on vindictive whim at any time.

      Its a load of bollocks.

    • Erick says:

      09:24am | 20/05/11

      Unfortunately, John, the federal government has announced that it intends to change the law - to make it even easier to separate fathers from their children, and to prevent women who make false allegations from being penalised.

      This is a direct result of feminist lobbying against equal rights.

    • Joel B1 says:

      09:27am | 20/05/11

      “The sooner society (and the law) get rid of the assumption that women automatically make better parents the better.”

      As a stay-at-home dad I can tell you that it will never happen. Women have too much invested in being mothers. You can be a really crap human but as soon as you get pregnant you’re special.

      Only a few more years before I can get back in the workforce, do you think there’s a special government program to help me like there is for women?

    • Paul C says:

      09:42am | 20/05/11

      @Carz Are you speaking from experience?  What the Law says and what the law does are very different.

    • Fiona says:

      09:43am | 20/05/11

      You know @RealDave, it’s sometimes called a sacrifice because women (or those men who do it) may give up fulfilling and financially rewarding careers to stay at home, or go part time while their children are young. It doesn’t mean that they begrudge it, although some may. I have 4 kids and my husband fondly thought that he’d love to do it, but when faced with the reality of 4 busy kds and the house to run around them, he asked me to “please don’t die” (it was a joke) and we decided that I’d work part time while he worked full time. That’s just my experience.
      It’s a bit sad that you’re already assuming that your partner would be vindictive and money grabbing if you broke up. Does she know that you feel this way about her character?

    • Carz says:

      10:28am | 20/05/11

      @Paul C, no I am speaking from having read the Family Law Act and the associated publicity that came out about the changes made in 2006. Amazing what you can find with Google. And I am aware that there is a difference between what the law says and does. One only has to look at sentencing in criminal cases to see that.

    • TheRealDave says:

      11:10am | 20/05/11

      @Fiona, you might have a point if every bloke loved his job and looked forward to getting up every morning to go to work. Some men do have ‘rewarding’ careers or jobs they ‘love to get out of bed to go off to’...but there are far more blokes who don’t like or even hate their jobs but still get up and go every day because there are bills to be paid.

      Why is that sacrifice not counted at all? Worse still - its counted against them!

      I know I’d far rather be at home. I’ve stayed home plenty of times to look after 3 kids to give the missus a break or when her work takes precedence and I have time owing, it doesn’t take 8 hours to do ‘domestic duties’, nor do I have whinging clients or screaming bosses on my arse.

      But this isn’t about the relative merits of ‘Dometic Duties’. Its more why women have been legally determined to have ‘made a sacrifice’ while men have not - and are punished for it.

    • AliceC says:

      11:40am | 20/05/11

      @Erick

      “This is a direct result of feminist lobbying against equal rights”

      No, the feminist movement was about equal rights for all. Those who lobby against men having rights, are known as misandrists. I am a feminist, but not a misandrist. I would recommend you use the terms appropriately.

    • Suzanne says:

      12:46pm | 20/05/11

      TheRealDave says:11:10am | 20/05/11
      @TheRealDave
      “you might have a point if every bloke loved his job and looked forward to getting up every morning to go to work. Some men do have ‘rewarding’ careers or jobs they ‘love to get out of bed to go off to’...but there are far more blokes who don’t like or even hate their jobs but still get up and go every day because there are bills to be paid”

      That’s life when you’re the main breadwinner Dave. Surely before you had kids you and your partner sat down and worked out how things would be taken care of financially?
      Hell, I’d love to be a stay at home mum but since I earn substantially more than my husband it’s never going to happen. If one of us had to give up work and stay at home it would be him. He’s already done it for 8 months, he’s just gone back to work after 8 months as a stay at home dad.
      Honestly, you can’t see why precedence is given to the primary care-giver? You know the person who does the bulk of the child care, who the children see more of every day?
      That’s not to say the other parent doesn’t love them just as much, it just means there is less disruption to the childs daily life so it’s less upsetting for them, which is what any good parent wants.

    • Loxy says:

      01:44pm | 20/05/11

      Carz, the women automatically gets the shared-custody, the man must go to court for it if the women doesn’t agree.

    • Bev says:

      02:12pm | 20/05/11

      AliceC says:11:40am | 20/05/11

      No, the feminist movement was about equal rights for all. Those who lobby against men having rights, are known as misandrists. I am a feminist, but not a misandrist. I would recommend you use the terms appropriately.

      To be a feminist is to be misandrist or endorse it because others feminists do it in your name while you remain silent.  You cannot being a bit pregnant.

    • Kika says:

      03:34pm | 20/05/11

      @ KH - you make total sense. You can’t have it both ways. You either do the majority of child rearing and sacrifices or don’t.  All the men in my life, and I’m only talking personally, and it might just be that all the men in my life are jerks, but 99.99% of them leave the nappy changing, sick day calling, doctor visits, cooking, cleaning up after to the mother. Even if they both work.

    • Erick says:

      03:58pm | 20/05/11

      @AliceC - You are both a misandrist and a feminist. The two are inseparable in practice, since feminism is an ideology that defines men as “the enemy”.

    • Suzanne says:

      04:41pm | 20/05/11

      @kika
      I think maybe you’ve just been very unlucky.
      My husband and both of my brothers are fantastic fathers, none of them have ever moaned about changing a nappy of getting up for a 3am feed. My oldest brother works nights so he can take his son to school and pick him up after and looks after his daughter during the day.
      My husband gave up work for 8 months (not much of a sacrifice though since he hated his job!) to stay at home with our daughter and he’s always been very house proud. Now that he’s back at work in a new job he says he’d love to do it again if we have another one .
      It’s a shame that more men don’t get the opportunity to be stay at home dads for a while, hopefully with paid parental leave coming in more of them will.

    • Fiona says:

      07:01pm | 20/05/11

      What on earth makes you think @real Dave that every woman loves their job? Or that she loves housework and every aspect of child care? It’s a sacrifice on the part of both parents when you raise children. Most women would appreciate a partner’s sacrifice in going to work. As for the time it takes to do housework, it is what you make of it, so if you’re not motivated it won’t be all day, but if you are….then there’s the fact that it doesn’t end, or, clearly in your case, get appreciated. As for whinging….

    • Scott says:

      11:20pm | 21/05/11

      @ Carz:  You are so wrong and I suggest that Google doesnt make you an expert in Family Law.  There is no “assumption under the law for shared parenting” and the misinformed like you do untold damage to those trying to be more involved in their children’s lives.  The 2006 amendments to the Family Law Act provided the introduction of a rebuttable presumption of equal shared parental RESPONSIBILITY and particular obligations placed on family courts to consider ‘equal time’ and ‘substantial and significant time’ arrangements where the presumption applies. In other words, both parents have an equal responsibility for the well being of the children and an equal say in decisions regarding the raising of the children (choice of school etc). Equal shared parental responsibility does NOT equate to shared parenting in terms of 50/50 time with each parent.  In cases where equal shared parental responsibility applies (ie it has not been rebutted by the other party to the satisfaction of the judge), then the judge is compelled to CONSIDER the case for equal time or a substantial time arrangement.  That has lead to more parent’s, predominantly fathers, gaining more time with their children.  Which is what the single mother lobby groups hate and why they rail against the 2006 amendments.

    • AliceC says:

      12:09pm | 23/05/11

      @Erick - “You are both a misandrist and a feminist. The two are inseparable in practice, since feminism is an ideology that defines men as “the enemy”.”

      I disagree. Feminism began as a movement towards equality. I am a feminist as I believe in equality for all, and no one should be disadvantaged because of their gender.

      @Bev
      To be a feminist is to be misandrist or endorse it because others feminists do it in your name while you remain silent.  You cannot being a bit pregnant.”

      That’s like saying all Christians are bigots because others say/do bigoted things in the name of Christianity.

    • Damian says:

      08:11am | 20/05/11

      I feel that the law needs to change to provide greater access to men for their children when relationships fall apart.  I also feel collectivity, men as a a group need to get our act together.  We need to campaign and talk, not resort to violence.  This only underpins the case against us.

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:40am | 20/05/11

      You mean like hang a banner on the Harbour Bridge to highlight the issues…..and then get even less access to your kids as a reward?

    • Tom says:

      02:07pm | 20/05/11

      Damian, Who is “we”? ... The ones who acted violently had a propensity to violence and an bigotted, oppressive system that triggered the violence. Are you trying to say that these people are “we”?

      Who is “we”? ... 99% of men already do not resort to violence and a similar percentage abhors violence (particularly against children) in any circumstance. There is no case against “us”.

      “We need to campaign and talk” ... “we” already do. But as TRD said, it does not always achieve what “we” want it to achieve.

    • Rachel says:

      09:03pm | 20/05/11

      ‘We’ should be the men AND women who love their kids. This isn’t a gender issue, the only consideration is what is best for each individual child in each individual situation. I have heard that the best thing that a man (woman) can do for his child is to love their mother (father). So true. Any person who puts anything, especially spite, before the welfare of their child should be severely penalised in custody disputes.

    • Seanr says:

      08:12am | 20/05/11

      I’ll stress I have nothing but disgust for people who harm their children but I’ve seen the pressure a breakup can put on people. A good mate split from his wife and for 2 years he has had to fight to get to see his child 3 afternoons a week. His ex is on legal aid whilst he has had to mortgage his house (which he owned debt free before the relationship) and borrow from family to help fund legal bills and give her a payout.
      She has thrown up some truly digusting allegations about him all of which are untrue and without evidence but had to be investigated.
      Everytime he goes to court he wins more access rights but it’s taken a great emotional, financial and physical toll on him. So much so that at one point he was prepared to give up fighting and not see his child until they were older.

    • fairsfair says:

      08:50am | 20/05/11

      As someone who has never personally been involved in all of this stuff, I am just shocked that it goes on, and it goes on so often. And that nobody is listening to men.

      I can see the motivation behind two of these acts. Firstly the bridge - yep he mucked some people about, but he did something that he was safely capable of doing that had an impact. He hurt nobody last Friday and had his cause heard. Secondly, that man was filled with rage for his partner. Nobody knows the details, but she was clearly keeping her kids from their dad (which may have very well been justified who knows) and he has snapped. Reacted violently to the person/people who were hurting him and took his daughter. The manner in which he chose to end their lives together (non violent and together) suggests that he very much loved his daughter.

      Thirdly - this man is just a monster and this has nothing to do with pain of losing access to his child. This phsychopath/sociopath ought to burn in hell. What a pig.

      Where do we start to even fix this problem though? The preference to the female seems to be so indemic in our courts system and social behaviour. Punch, perhaps we should have an Angry Cripple style weekly contribution from Dads that need help, and people that can help Dads?

      Seanr, I hope your friend didn’t give up, but I can imagine how hard it must have been.

    • Mathias says:

      11:13am | 20/05/11

      Seanr - Basically the exact thing has happenned to my uncle over the past 5 years. It has cost his house, and my grandfather’s superannuation, to fight for visiting rights and to fight some of the hideous allegations. Some of the the allegations are absolutely ridiculous, but the courts and the law system just let it play out year after after year. Worst thing is, is that its the kid that suffers the most, and is used as a bargaining tool by the mother. It’s truly sad, as my uncle, once a great father, and top bloke,  has resigned to drinking himself into oblivion.

    • Anne71 says:

      12:47pm | 20/05/11

      Seanr & fairsfair, I agree that the system is biased towards women. We had a family friend - a lovely man and terrific father to his children - who lost custody of his kids to his ex-wife, who was an addict and barely capable of looking after herself, let alone a child.  How could anyone in their right mind have thought that was a good idea? And I’m prepared to bet that if it was the father who was the addict, he probably wouldn’t have been allowed any access at all. 
      Equality should mean that - equality. No special treatment for one gender over the other.

    • Erick says:

      04:07pm | 20/05/11

      Hear hear, Anne71!

      Politicians keep talking about equality, but they never do anything about it.

    • DJ says:

      08:25am | 20/05/11

      Another article which shows its bias against men. The events on the Gold Coast were obsene. Paul Rogers should have just killed himself rather than what he did. But why is it, the whole tempo of the coverage changes when it is the father? Men are always murderoues & violent, while mothers who kill their children are nearly always portrayed as mentally ill, or victims or deserving of sympathy .  This is symptomatic of a deep bias in modern society, but of course nothing will change.

    • KH says:

      01:28pm | 20/05/11

      All killers are basically selfish in some way - women who kill their own children most often have custody, or are still in the relationship with the father, and sometimes they are in a new relationship - the motivation is not revenge - it might be just as selfish or insane, but basically not revenge.  Men who kill their kids are nearly always estranged from the relationship with the mother, and are nearly always engaged in some kind of custody dispute.  The motivation is revenge against the former partner.  Its not rocket science to pick this up - there is no excuse really for killing anyone, especially your own family.  But you can’t deny that in nearly all these cases, there is a pattern - whereas women killers tend to have a variety of other reasons (including mental illness) for their actions.You can’t fight that - no one is a mind reader and its impossible to know that someone has come to the conclusion that to get a new boyfriend they have to kill their children, for example, but the point in this article that you can fight the male killers by offering more support services and safer outlets where there are custody issues, because it is a specific situation that isn’t being dealt with at the moment.  If anything, I think that makes the women who kill more unpredictable and frightening.  I think you will find there is much greater revulsion about women who kill their children than men who do.

    • Erick says:

      04:02pm | 20/05/11

      @KH - Your sexist theories have been thoroughly discredited in the comments above.

      You blame men, and make excuses for women, because you are a bigot. That’s all there is to it.

      Unfortunately, family laws are made and administered by people just like you - hence the enormous evils inherent in their existence.

    • Sony B Goode says:

      08:32am | 20/05/11

      The family “court” system has the following charatceristics:

      The principle of natural justice has been abandoned. Most divorces are initiated by women who under this system have a strong financial incentive to separate.

      Because of “no fault” people have no forum to be heard in court in relation to the issues around the divorce, yet character is the principle criterion to evaluate custody.

      The presumption of innocence has been abandoned. Unscrupulous lawyer advise women to heap false claims of various types of abuse to sully the man’s character with the specific aim of aggravating and infuriating the man. One lawyer was quoted to a friend’s wife as saying “to really get under his skin”.

      Procedure and negotiations are delayed till the man is well and truly cooking.
      Once proceedings starts the judge will call for an “independent” family report. This is usually done by some feminist or soft do gooder type.

      During the process of a “family report”, the reporter will note if there is any animosity towards the women from the man and this animosity is used to justify taking the kids away from the man on the basis that they don’t want this animosity to infect the children against the mother.

      There is no possibility for the man to defend from these false allegations as the aim is to extract animosity from the man as the claims under “no fault” are mostly irrelevant, BUT! if he displays anything that hints of animosity under the weight of false accusations he loses automatically.

      Women get the children. Under the principle of continuity, women almost invariably win majority custody; men are relegated to alternate weekend access rights.

      Women get the money. The first thing a lawyer will tell a women seeking divorce is “I can get you 75%”. What better incentive to stick it to the man.

      The myth that divorce is 50:50 is a myth, the average divorce is 75:25 in woman’s favour, throw in any legal fees and it’s virtually women take all.

      Women get paid continuously. A strong incentive for women to seek most of the custody is that she will continue to milk the man for money via “child support” till the kids are adults. This is around 20% of pretax income, relegating most men to indentured slavery.

      Women who were supported by a man are entitled to receive that support for the rest of their lives after separation with spousal maintenance. To avoid this you have to give up an even greater share of joint assets.

      There is “absolutely” no accountability in how a woman spends her “child support”, its total free money to do with as she pleases and most do.

      When calculating “child support”, the income from a new partner is ignored. The women is incentivised to double dip and find another income from a new partner.

      It’s for the children. This is what you are told when they take your kids away and all your money and milk you dry for the next couple of decades. Of course if the woman has any further kids, or marries someone with kids their share of what you gave away can be diluted. Nor do you get back anything once the kids are adults.

      This is not a legal court in any sense of the word, it is a welfare system designed to transfer as much as possible to the woman.

    • Fiona says:

      09:05am | 20/05/11

      So do we want to go back to the way things were over 100 years ago, when children automatically stayed with their father? Does that seem fair either? A large part of the break ups involving kids I see these days have the kids living equal amounts of time with both parents. In those cases very little child support either way is handed out. What about the parents that don’t care to keep up their child access or support, leaving one parent “holding the baby”? I was one of those, got no support (kids didn’t see their dad either) for 15 years, but it happens. The system has flaws and some parents (both genders) milk it for all it’s worth, but please acknowledge that some men are in the wrong too.

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:20am | 20/05/11

      Well said sir. Well said.

    • Sony B Goode says:

      09:45am | 20/05/11

      50:50 might be a good start. But the system actively destroys many men through massive injustice and humiliation.

      Unscrupulous lawyers pour petrol on the flames to feed their incomes. This is one of the biggest problems, watching lawyers do emotional damage to your kids is beyond heart wrenching. It’s no wonder many men completely lose it.

    • Nic says:

      10:01am | 20/05/11

      Absolutely worthless reply Fiona. Almost insultingly so.

      For starters it’s not black and white. The system doesn’t and shouldn’t be completely for the man (past) or completely for the woman (present). Making the system less absolutely ridiculous doesn’t mean we go back 100 years and give men all the rights, your strawman argument adds nothing to the discussion.

      And then “It’s got flaws sure! But it’s what we’ve got!”, you can’t just dismiss the flaws as some minor upset we have to deal with. These are things that ruin finances, destroy lives and cause massive repercussions. Looking at the thousands of men suffering in this system and saying “Well it’s got flaws but at least it’s not the old system” is just ignorant.

    • RGG says:

      10:29am | 20/05/11

      Yawn. You are conflating three sets of proceedings: divorce, children, and property. They are not the same, and restoring an element of fault to divorce proceedings will not in any way effect property/children’s proceedings.

      Independent family reports are carried out by independent, registered psychologists who are picked by the parties themselves. If the parties cannot agree, the parties nominate one and then the court decides from those that have been picked. Your comments in this regard suggest that you received a negative report once upon a time - and from the tenor of your argument it is not hard to see why.

      Your comments in relation to women getting money and time with the children (note: not ‘custody’, you don’t own them) are misconceived at best, and completely wrong at law at worst. There is in fact a presumption of equality in both property and parenting aspects, the presumption being tipped either way by having regard to a range of highly complex factors which don’t suit your needlessly simple argument.

      Your entire post reeks of bitterness. I put it to you that perhaps you are not viewing the system as objectively as you probably should. Maybe if you got stung by it, it was for a good reason?

    • John says:

      12:00pm | 20/05/11

      RGG I would say it is you who is biggoted and hence the reason why men get the bad deal. I have been divorced but thank fully I had no children. This is how bias the system is. I was charged with aggrevated assualt by the police. The police stated my ex had accussed me of assualting her even though I had called the police because my ex was arguing with me for no reason. During the questioning I provided the police with a recording of the nights event that I recorded on my mobile phone showing I had not done anything. The police did not even bother taking it into consideration and said we a charging you with the assualt. when I stated what evidence are you using to charge me, the officer stated that all they had was her word and that was the only evidence they needed, even though I had provided them of the recording on my mobile phone. I was told I was not allowed to return to my house except once to grab some clothes. After 6 weeks of been no allowed to return to my house I was finally allowed to return as my ex had left.

      When I returned what I saw shocked me. All the household items had been taken and what was left had been destroyed. My couches had been slashed, been cut to pieces, old TV cord cut (but the big 50” I had purchased taken) and my clothes were all thrown in the bin and had soya sauce thrown on them. After this I went to the police station to report what had happened and filed a case against her. It took me 3 mths before I got word from the police in regards to the destruction of my items and was told by them that they were unable to locate her. This at the same time as the police prosectutor advicing the judge that they were in contact with her all the time.

      This dragged on as the police DPP kept on delayin the case and negotiating. At one stage offering me to drop my charges and they will drop thiers on me and then coming to the next court session and stating no to the offer they had made. This dragged on for over 9 mths till the charges were finally withdrawn. Do you know why the charges were withdrawn RGG, is because of the recording I provided to the police was never mentioned in the police statements and when provided to the police DPP they decieded that the charges get this were false.

      So I ask you was this justice. I was kicked out of my house. Any items I had left destroyed and after 15,000 the case was dropped by the police.

      The saying justice is blind is so true.

    • RGG says:

      12:15pm | 20/05/11

      John, what on earth do your dealings with the NSW Police and DPP have to do with my comments regarding the federal family law system? Hint: nothing.

    • John says:

      12:32pm | 20/05/11

      RGG pointing out the system is flawed from the beggining to the end. you point out in your comments that the gentlemen must of got a negative report, but when the system is full of systemic failure then the system will always provide for a negative report. I was pointing this out that justice system is rooted against the husband/father.

      All the systems in the legal system are bias against men. In my case was told I had no right to bring action against been falsely accused of assualt. This is what the federal govt is intending to introduce now, that when claims made against fathers or husbands turn out to be false they have not right of recourse and the mother/wife is able to get away with making a false statement which last itme I checked the legal system was a crime. Dont forget when you are making a report of crime you are signing a statement stating what you are saying is true and correct.

    • St. Michael says:

      12:48pm | 20/05/11

      @ Sony: “The presumption of innocence has been abandoned.”

      Er, it was never there to start with.  The Family Court doesn’t deal with criminal offences.

      In criminal courts, an accused who is charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent, and it’s for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused.

      In civil courts, including the Family Court, there is no presumption either way as to the correctness or otherwise of an assertion.  And the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities—that is, can you prove it is “more likely than not” that something happened.

      If you don’t want to get hammered financially by the Family Court, be the primary caregiver.  That’s in the main what causes the imbalance, because the welfare of the children come first, and most of the time maintaining the relationship between the children and the primary caregiver is seen as fundamental.

      Or don’t have kids unless you are really, positively sure that this is the person you’ll be able to spend the rest of your life with.  I had a Family Law lecturer who once said every bloke should have the section of the Family Law Act dealing with child support printed upside-down on their T-shirts, so every time you look down.

    • Bev says:

      02:02pm | 20/05/11

      RGG says:10:29am | 20/05/11
      Independent family reports are carried out by independent, registered psychologists who are picked by the parties themselves. If the parties cannot agree, the parties nominate one and then the court decides from those that have been picked.
      The majority of reports are written by people who are part of the court system.  To get the job they must identify with and accept feminist theory. Neutral? independent? Don’t think so.

    • Tom says:

      03:52pm | 20/05/11

      @RGG: your opening word was “Yawn”. Thankyou for showing your extreme arrogance. You are a true man-hater. Thank God you are not representative of all women. It is time your type was drummed out of the system.

    • Eva says:

      04:13pm | 20/05/11

      Jiohn,

      I think what you have written points more towards how slowly the police act. I agreed to provide supporting evidence to a man in a case where his ex was saying he assaulted her in a nightclub. I wasn’t called at the time by the police but out of the blue many, many months later when the prosecutor asked for my evidence to be checked. Months on I still don’t know if the case was dropped or whether one day I will be called to give evidence in court.

    • Faybian says:

      08:07pm | 20/05/11

      Thanks for the well thought out reply @engineer. I agree, the system needs to be fair and even handed. I’ve seen far more crappy parenting by parents in my job and have the unenviable job or notifying DOCS.
      @nic, that was just an example of other unfairness.
      My examples of females (I believe someone requested them).
      One of my friends deliberately fell pregnant and got married to a father who had to be dragged home at the end of his bucks night (fortunately still married).
      A young woman fell pregnant to an even younger man, who requested an abortion. She refused and he didn’t want to see the child. She took him to court for child support, against a lot of advice. 
      Happy?
      Why would I lie about child support/access cases of people my husband and I know to a bunch of strangers on the Internet?

    • History says:

      07:10am | 23/05/11

      @Fiona

      Perhaps a look at history without the Feminist goggles on may show something different. In fact in the past men were responsible for the upkeep of women even after divorce or separation and men were responsible (punished) for the crimes that their wives committed. Only in so far as carrying out these responsibilities towards their wives was there any perceived biases to me.

      Perhaps you could justify the current bias towards women if they were likewise legally responsible for keeping their husbands in comfort after separation.

    • Jim says:

      09:07am | 20/05/11

      For many Dads, they are the victim several times over. For some Dads, they don’t even deserve the title “dad”. But the way the Family Court and Child Support work, they cannot touch the latter, and so go about punishing the former in new and imaginative ways.

      My story is this; I had worked my arse off over 12 years of marriage…beautiful house, couple of cars, kids in private schools, no debt other than a comfortably controlled mortgage.

      My wife was prone to temper tantrums and was always whinging about something, but I loved her nonetheless. I was doing FIFO in NQ for a few years, and one day I decided to spring a surprise and fly home early. However it was me that got the surprise when I found Johnno the Butcher enjoying himself in ways no husband EVER wants to see.

      Fine, the kids are the most important thing here - I moved into a flat, while she stayed in the house. I continued paying the mortgage, and we worked out on the CSA website how much I would be paying and paid it. I also paid school fees on top of that plus a tonne of ‘incidentals’. I even coughed up $6K for my step-daughters braces. At this point CSA was kept out of it and it was all by mutual agreement. It was extremely tough but like I said, the kids were number 1.

      Then the mining industry got the double whammy of KRudd destroying workchoices and the GFC destroying commodity prices. A lot of mines closed down, including the one I worked at. I was made redundant. Suddenly I had no income, with no job prospects on the horizon. I had enough money saved to cover the mortgage but couldn’t afford the other payments. She was initially fine with this and considerate about my position, but then one of her bogan friends got in her ear…“he’s in mining, he would have got a HUGE pay-out” This of course was false - I got 3 weeks A/L owing and 2 weeks payout. So next thing I know I get a phone call from CSA - she’d been on to them.

      According to them, it didn’t matter that I was out of a job right now, because during the last financial year I earned X amount of dollars so I had to pay this much maintenance - starting the previous month!

      Needless to say, after all I’d done I was knocked for 6.

      In order to meet my newfound obligations I had to take a job in another state, away from my kids. That was the most heart-wrenching episode in my entire life so far.

      Next step was the settlement - “have the lot” I said, just leave me my super. No, that wasn’t good enough (by this stage she had turned nasty)...the settlement dragged on for 3 years, costing me a truckload. In the end I was left with a huge debt, and she only got a fraction of what she would have before 3 years of fees came out. Didn’t matter…her words were “I don’t care, I’ve destroyed you so I’m happy”.

      Stepping back now to my first move away from the kids, the job I got turned out to be with a very dodgy company and it folded after 6 months. It then took me 3 months to find work…3 months where CSA demanded I still pay! I lived off my credit card and am still trying to get the balance to head down. I ended up in a job that paid $40K LESS than what I had been earning - but guess what CSA said?! I still have to pay based on my previous year! So 60% of my take home pay was going to the banshee. Then one of my boys turned 14…an age that according to CSA means I have to pay significantly more. It’s only gone up since then.

      Now….I’ve met a wonderful woman here locally, we’ve settled in together and had a baby girl at the start of this month. Out of nearly $2K a month in maintenance obligations for 2 kids…our little baby girl is only worth (according to CSA) a $180/month reduction in payments.

      How the fuck does that work??????

      Other problems associated with being an honest dad and trying to do the right thing include just trying to get back on your feet. I’ve been told by a bank manager that if I was a first home buyer earning half of what I am now, I’d have no troubles getting a home loan…but because I’ve been through the wringers I have no chance.

      My story is repeated in various ways hundreds of times a day by hundreds of different guys - any bloke who is slightly unhinged will be pushed over the edge after dealing with the Family Court system and the CSA.

    • Sony B Goode says:

      09:40am | 20/05/11

      its called misandry and a result of the feminisation of the legal system

      CSA make the gestapo look like boy scouts. CSA staff are given bonuses based on amount of money they collect and transfer to women.

      The suicide rate from this divorce system for men is ridiculously high.

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:53am | 20/05/11

      Thats a heartbreaking story Jim, but unfortunatley an all to common one.

      My parents divorced when I was around 16, oldest of 4 boys. The old man was about 20 years in in the army at the time. My old girl went easy on the old man, despite him being a serial adulterer and violent abuser or her and us kids. She let him have his super untouched and only wanted the bare minimum in child support just as long as she go the house, which they only I think 7 years into a 20 year mortgage, so she wasn’t getitng a ‘free’ house - just a huge mortgage. I distinctly remember the fact that the old girl used to laugh that for 4 kids my old man was only paying $44 a week. Yet,, he had knocked up some skank in Melbourne years before, unknown to us, and was paying her $50 a week for that one kid.

      Yes there are bad dads, and there are jsut as many bad mums…..but there are good ones of both and there are some sensible mature adults that can communicate maturely even after a break up…its a pity courts and lawyers tend to screw thigns up at times.

    • gman says:

      10:02am | 20/05/11

      I feel for you mate. Sounds like a you’ve been through the works and more.

      Heres to hoping you get back on your feet! All the best.

    • Understanding CSA's viewpoint says:

      10:42am | 20/05/11

      I understand what your saying Jim, your Ex was obviously a nasty one, just be glad she’s gone for good.  One thought though, for example if the CSA says you earn’t $100K last year, so you have to pay a percentage of that; on this years support - what happened to the $100K you earn’t last year? I think CSA’s view is you should still have a percentage of last years earnings saved (especially if your income is deemed high) - just a thought.

    • Kika says:

      11:11am | 20/05/11

      RealDave - you make total sense. There ARE bad Dads out there just as there are bad Mums. They are the ones making it harder for the good Dads to get their rights. Erick is constantly banging on like there is no such thing as a bad father.

      Jim - That’s a sad story. I am surprised you moved on so quickly and had another child given the circumstances of your previous relationship. What lead your ex wife to such terrible behaviour? Do you know the reasons why she did all those things? Sounds like we’re getting 1 side of the story here.

    • Kika says:

      11:19am | 20/05/11

      So it’s ok for a man to have an affair when he’s not feeling like his wife is fulfilling his needs enough, but absolutely disgusting for a woman to do the same?

    • James1 says:

      12:25pm | 20/05/11

      “How the fuck does that work??????”

      Clearly, it doesn’t, and is evidence of a system that is severely broken.  I wish that your experience was something extraordinary, but sadly it is a story that many of us have heard too many times before.

      Best of luck with it all Jim.

    • Jim says:

      01:03pm | 20/05/11

      @Kika - You’re correct, there are always 2 sides to a story and I’m not completely blameless. I’m a bottler, I keep quiet when things bother me. She was the total opposite…it was not an ideal combination. The more she carried on about trivial shit the more I clammed up, and the wilder she got - frog in a saucepan stuff.

      Turns out she was no stranger to affairs…she liked to play the field before we met, I knew that, but she kept that behaviour up while we were married…along with poker machines and smoking pot.

      As to why she became downright nasty? That’s easy - for at least 10 of the 12 years we were married ALL of her friends were divorced or separated. Her daily conversations with these people revolved around how easy it is to destroy someone. She’s acknowledged that to me - both as a weapon and as some sort of apology not long ago.

      @Understand; there was a time when some blokes would move to a lesser paying job, or go on the dole, or start a family trust, or negatively gear etc etc to reduce their income and therefore pay less. To close that loophole CSA look at past earnings and base their assessment accordingly. It traps the dogs but for genuine cases like mine it sucks.

    • TheRealDave says:

      01:33pm | 20/05/11

      “or at least 10 of the 12 years we were married ALL of her friends were divorced or separated.”

      If I had a dollar for everytime I heard that story. A mate of mine is going through that right now. I went through it around 10 years ago when our oldest was around 1. Unlike my mate, my missus and I sorted out our crap and she was back within a fortnight, my mate however is living in a flat whilst this missus and the bloke she’s knocking off this week are living in the huge house he built in the Hinterland…but at least he gets to see his kids one wekeend a fortnight…...

    • Wayne Kerr says:

      01:50pm | 20/05/11

      @Jim

      No good deed goes unpunished.  I did something similar with my ex.  left her my equity in the house, the car and the furniture.  Also forked out money to get rid of debts we’d incurred during our marriage. I did all this based on making sure my kids had a roof over their head and food on their table.  I fortunately was able to talk her out of taking the supa.  I’d moved out and was living with a friend and I was paying the mortgage and all the bills and after work travel costs and rent to my friend I was living on $10 a week.

      I got a lucky break and I was able to get back on my feet and fortunately I got a court signed financial agreement so I only have to pay a certain amount and thats it.  For the record it’s more than the CSA say I should pay.

      Do you think the that harpy of an ex appreciates any of that?  Don’t hold your breath.

    • gytr says:

      02:14pm | 20/05/11

      Jim, I totally sympathise mate… To add to my bit of the sob story I told below:
      I was working FIFO on a 5/2, had the daughter every weekend, paying the correct amount of maintenance as deemed by CSA. Met a wonderful woman who I married almost 2 years ago. However when she and I were starting out, the ex called me on a Tuesday and told me “I had to come home cause the daughter has been suspended. Get home now cause we (her and her partner) can’t deal with her”
      My manager was understanding thankfully. I flew home. Picked the daughter up, and took her to my new (at the time) girlfriends place where we stayed for the rest of the week. Her self confidence was destroyed. By the end of the week, she had talked to the principal in a meeting with myself and my ex.
      Daughter then expresses a desire to move in with me. What was I to do? Say no? I approached work, and obviously, there was no scope in my role to work from town. I had to resign.
      Girlfriend and I discussed it, moved from the 2 bedroom appartment into a house, double the rent cost.
      I lost $62,000 a year in gross wage.
      We still had the ongoing expenses of “the lifestyle”, even though we cut back drastically on everything to accomodate the daughter.
      Then the contact with the daughter stopped.
      We can only calculate it was to do with the ex realising she, who suddenly earnt more than me, would have to pay maintenance. After repeated attempts at contact, the daughter did the final phone call with the don’t contact me part…
      Oh, I forgot to add the most frustrating part… The ex calling me to tell me I need to pay more maintenance cause they’ve over extended themselves, when my partner and I at that time are struggling to make ends meet, living week to week on our wages whilst he’s still FIFO, and she’s earning double what I am.
      To add insult to already painful emotions, CSA slugs me with a $6,000 bill. How the fuck do you pay off that when you are only earning $39,000 a year? And have rearranged your life because your child wanted to live with you, then changed her mind?
      CSA don’t care. They pile on interest on the debt.
      It doesn’t count that the ex and her partner gross close to $190,000 a year.
      So now, I have returned to FIFO, but the debt is almost gone, even though I work a crappy 22/6 roster and miss my family like no tomorrow. I am doing it to pay off the CSA debt. And taking the slug of the increased maintenance payments.
      Yes, it does your head in, but thankfully I am not alone

    • John of Brisbane says:

      09:19pm | 20/05/11

      Change the names .. my story’s the same. Just though in some allegations of abuse for good measure and the result is the same. I paid my child support obligations for 15 years and CSA would not even tell me if ny kids were alive (ex-wife moved them and I had no access or contact for 15 years). After that time when they were old enough I hired a lawyer and found them. it cost me a fortune to subpeona the CSA to divulge their location. I’m trying now to rebuild a relationship with my daughter, my son won’t talk to me or her as he believes my ex’s lies.
      I feel for you Jim and wish you all the best. Believe me when I say it does get get better eventually, you just can’t get back the lost time. Good Luck mate.

    • Muriel says:

      03:59pm | 21/05/11

      It’s experiences like this that prove that it doesn’t matter what sex you are, if someone is out for revenge, they’ll get you.  The social and legal systems we operate under often uphold (lower-level) abuses, especially financial one’s.  There is no way one can escape a revengeful, resentful and hate-filled ex-partner.  Although statistically, it is lone mothers that make up the bulk of those living in lower socio-economic positions, and there is mountains of evidence that prove that men, as a group, find themselves more financially viable after a relationship breakdown, the experiences of anyone, whether male or female, of trying to break away from the clutches of someone who holds a grudge have long-lasting detrimental effects.

    • Screwed and broken says:

      06:20pm | 22/05/11

      Sounds like deja vu re my situation Jim. The CSA formulas are just Govt extortion.  There is no logic or fairness used at all.  And how familiar, the comment about “It doesn’t matter cos I’ve destroyed you”.  Been there done that mate!  $30K in legal fees for me so far, and probably around the same for her. Money which I offered her, which she could have had in her pocket, to better our two girls’ lives, but no, gone to pay off a Porsche for the lawyers !!! And don’t even get me started on the 2 year proceedings for financial settlement, and then the last two years of HELL, when the unfounded, malicious molestation accusations were made, investigated twice, by two Govt agencies, and FINALLY filed.  Not that I was informed mind you.  I was left hanging.  If not for a lawyer mate asking around I still wouldn’t know I’ve been ‘cleared’.  And, of course, I’ve not had ANY contact with my young daughters for nearly two years, my health is shot, my work is now likely to be terminated, I’m broke, and I try EVERY day not to SNAP !!  So, now we’ll see IF there is any accountability/punishment/justice in the Family Court regarding fabricators/liars/slanderers/perjurers, and we’ll see how a deliberate attempt to ‘destroy’ the father/male, (as you touched on Jim), is handled by the system !! Regarding the ease of divorce now, and the complicity of the system in it, I’ll leave you with my ex wife’s take on things, “What’s not to like?  I get the kids, the property, your money, 1/2 your super, and I don’t have to put up with you, it’s all win and no lose !”.  Nice, after 17 years together ...........

    • Not all women are b****es says:

      02:14pm | 23/05/11

      What a terrible story Jim. I feel your pain.

      After eventually agreeing to custody arrangements that my ex-husband wanted - believe it or not I was encouraging hime to spend more time with the children, after all he was the primary care giver after we had decided, whilst married, that I had the greater opportunity in terms of earning an income.

      Then spending circa $80k on legal fees in relation to the property settlement - sending me further into debt on the family home - simply because ex-husband’s new partner wanted a slice of what we had built together (on my healthy salary).

      To now, 10 years later the ongoing battle with CSA. There are court orders in place that state the amount of time my ex sees the children - but the last 10 years he has CHOSEN not too see the children as per the Orders. As soon as I mention that to CSA and provide the relevant proof (sad, but I document everything these days) I am withholding care. It has taken my 2 years to get to a resolution and guess what, my ex has not seen his sons since Christmas Day, and only 1 phone call since (my eldest son’s birthday).

      I feel for those dads who want to spend time with their kids and have former partners who prevent that from happening. It angers me that our front door is always open to my sons (aged 15 & 16) but their “father” neven knocks. It is people like him who cause problems for those who do the right thing.

    • Elphaba says:

      09:09am | 20/05/11

      Oh dear, this thread is going to get ugly today…

      Look, any parent who kills their children because of a personal beef with their ex-spouse is clearly a few fries short of a Happy Meal.  There is no reason to suggest that the emotions which drive mothers to kill are not the same as the emotions which drive a father to kill.

      Clearly there is something serious going on when parents think this is the only way out.  The only way to get a grip on it is to start treating these things like a mental illness, and investigating how we can prevent it.

      And staying together for the kids is not the answer.  I’ve seen kids the victims of that decision, and it just screws them up as much as kids of a divorced decision.  There clearly needs to be an overhaul of the Family Courts to make sure that children have equal time with both parents, and some serious investigating into the pressures that drive parents to kill.

    • Tchom says:

      10:24am | 20/05/11

      Thanks for keeping things sane, Elphaba

    • Elphaba says:

      10:32am | 20/05/11

      There’s only so much I can say on the issue ecause I don’t have kids.  I don’t know what it’s like to be a parent, or be married, or be divorced.

      There’s no excuse for parents to kill their children.  But it does happen, so the reasons for why it happens need to be investigated.  Jim’s story further up shows that there is a great disservice being doe to men in the Family Courts.  At the end of the day, only the health and wellbeing of the children matter.  Whatever it takes to ensure their safety is the only appropriate action to take.

    • Kika says:

      03:42pm | 20/05/11

      Heck yeah Elphaba! My parents were the classic ‘stay together’ for the kids situation. The fights they had… my dad with the bottle up until explode when drunk thing and my mum with the constant explosive insaneness… Far out! So it’s no wonder my sister & have serious anxiety issues as adults!!! We also were stuck in relationships (she still is) that should have died long time ago but stayed in it thanks to not having an example from them.

      I really wish they did separate. I decided as a kid if they did I would go move in with Dad.

    • Muriel says:

      04:25pm | 21/05/11

      “There is no reason to suggest that the emotions which drive mothers to kill are not the same as the emotions which drive a father to kill.”

      Actually there is.  There are studies from all corners of the globe that show that when a woman commits homicide against her child it is due to a strong perception of being “trapped” and murder/suicide is perceived as being the only way out.  There are very few documented incidences of familicide in the world, and less in the Westernised culture than other Asian or middle-eastern cultures. 

      However, this is not the case with fathers.  As our media is now only just beginning to air, the major motivation for fathers to commit familicide is revenge, pay-back for perceived slights against them.  Numbers of men have over-the-top senses of self-entitlement and do not distinguish themselves from their family.  Their children, and sometimes their ex-partners are possessions that the fathers deem simply cannot live a decent life without them.  The men that commit domestic homicide, particularly when it is a planned homicide/suicide view that because their own life is so horrendous, then it must be horrendous for those they profess to love.  Therefore, the only option is to take out everyone.  These men display a distinct lack of recognising boundaries and even more of a lack of understanding that their family are individual, autonomous beings with their own feelings, thoughts, desires, goals and dreams.  With the father that commits familicide it is his perception they are all one entity.  His.

    • Screwed and broken says:

      06:27pm | 22/05/11

      Thank you.  Well said!  succinct, concise, and spot on !!

    • engineer says:

      09:11am | 20/05/11

      My parents divorced when I was 8. I’ve seen this over and over throughout my life. The family court judges shold be jailed for what they have done.

      Time and again I’ve seen perfectly decent blokes taken to the cleaners by women who shouldn’t be allowed to get pregnant. They take the kids, take the child support and deny access. The mother almost always gets custody even though a father can raise kids just as well as a mother can. She gets the bulk of any assets and tehn she gets a chunk of his income.

      If she breaks the court orders there are no consequences, if he does she takes him to the cleaners.

      The problem is the social services are dominated by angry commy women, so the whole system is stacked against men. The net result of all this is that decent women can’t find partners because many blokes are wary of cohabiting or marraige because of what’s been done to blokes around them.

      Yes there are bad blokes, plenty of them, but the fact is the system is persecuting good blokes and not bad women. The only solution I can see is a quota imposed on the court, 50% child custody to men of all contested cases.

      And in case your wondering I’ve been happily cohabiting with my partner for 12 years. She’s wonderful and I love women, just not all of them.

    • Fiona says:

      09:58am | 20/05/11

      Why then, do plenty of men get away with rorting the system to ensure that they either don’t have to pay child support, or pay very little?
      1- cleaner at work whose real estate agent ex paid very little as he had reported his basic wage to CSA and not his commissions. He had free access to his teenage son
      2- man at husband’s work who used accountant to salary sacrifice and negative gear to minimize his gross income.
      3- man who quit work and went on dole so that he only had to pay minimum amount (admitted it to us)
      4- man who made sure that he had kids 8 days out of 14 so that he could get out of child support and could get all centrelink benefits, also happily admitted that.
      Expain that one @engineer. I’ve been married for years myself and love my husband and like the company of men, just not all of them. Wrong doing gets done on both sides. I could bring up examples of women doing the wrong thing too.

    • Mark says:

      10:17am | 20/05/11

      My parents divorced when I was 10. After what my mother did to my father, my father killed himself. I have never & will never be a father in Australia. I simply do not trust women enough. It hurts to loath someone you love.

      The simple fact of the matter is that the system rewards bad behaviour from woman. Therefore bad behaviour occurs & injustice rules. When you are dealing with the very basis of peoples self worth, their families, the results are evil.

    • Sony B Goode says:

      10:29am | 20/05/11

      Fiona you seem to have an underlying assumption that men have to pay something, why would that be? surely these days of equality the women should be working and sharing everything 50:50

    • TheRealDave says:

      11:16am | 20/05/11

      “I could bring up examples of women doing the wrong thing too. “

      Yeah, but you didn’t. Combined with your other comments in this thread its pretty clear the position you are taking on this issue, isn’t it?

      And there’s the problem the men in this thread are pointing out.

    • Wayne Kerr says:

      01:39pm | 20/05/11

      @Fiona,
      I call crap.
      “1- cleaner at work whose real estate agent ex paid very little as he had reported his basic wage to CSA and not his commissions. He had free access to his teenage son”  - CSA or whatever they’re called take the details of both parties taxable income from their Tax File No. and inform both parties of what should be paid to whom.  No.of days both parties have custody is also taken into account.

      “man who made sure that he had kids 8 days out of 14 so that he could get out of child support and could get all centrelink benefits, also happily admitted that.” - See my comment above.

      I have my kids roughly 50% of the time and I get regular updates from CSA on what my minimum payments should be.

    • loxy says:

      01:40pm | 20/05/11

      Engineer, totally agree!

    • KH says:

      03:11pm | 20/05/11

      My parents were divorced when I was 6.  He was a drunk and and a gambler.  He was supposed to pay some child support, but never did. My mother didn’t complain - she just got a second job.  When he was supposed to pick us up, most of the time a phone call would come just minutes before the appointed time, and there would be some new BS reason why he wasn’t coming.  He stole my mums savings account funds and spent it on horses and beer.  Then the mail order bride showed up.  He now plays happy families with his new children, and we have been long forgotten.  For every one of your sob stories, there is one like this man.  Its 22 years and counting - and I have no interest now in seeing him until the day of his funeral, when I will go to make sure he is in the box.

    • engineer says:

      03:55pm | 20/05/11

      Fiona,

      Never said there were no bad blokes. My father stopped paying support 6 months after they split. The point I’m making is if the family law courts HAD to award custody to fathers contesting 50% of the time:

      the women wouldn’t leave for no good reason, given a 50/50 chance of losing their kids. Great incentive to try to make it work.

      The court would have to consider carefully the worth of each individual parent instead of fobbing off custody to the mother every time.

      The court would have an incentive to reconsider custody if the mother misbehaves (like moving interstate with her new SO without telling anyone especially the father and then NOT getting punished for it).

      I would never endorse men getting it all their way but the overwhelming evidence is that since no fault came in teh system has been dredfully stacked. Favouring either unresonably is bad. We should strive for balance.

    • Gladys says:

      09:29am | 20/05/11

      Sorry. This guy was an emotional problem anyway. He had tattooed the names of his family on his chest. Who needs to do that? I mean, you have the children, they are in your life, why do you need to tattoo their names on you somewhere?

      The most sensible thing I’ve heard about tattoos on chests is a retired emergency services doctor who had DNR tattooed over his heart.

      The average father when going through custody goes through the hell of not seeing their children everyday, but tries to work with their ex-partner to make it work. The system isn’t geared for fathers, a hangover of the Hawke Government’s rushed legislation to create the CSA.

      Look at the photo of Paul Rogers. What do you see? A very ripped torso. Why? Machismo? Probably. After reading the comments of his ex wife’s family I suspect this guy was into power and control over his ex-partner and did not want her to be with anyone else if he couldn’t have her.

      What do you do about it? Maybe you get the tattoo artists to have an early warning system going. If they get someone in who wants the names of their kids on their chest and they mutter something about divorce, they hand them a Lifeline pamphlet.

      All jokes aside, the death of that little girl, the one in Melbourne who was thrown from the bridge, and the family in rural NSW…. it happens too often.

    • Michael says:

      10:16am | 20/05/11

      Hey Gladys, just read your post.

      to summarise.

      1 he had the names of loved ones tattooed on himself so that proves he had emotional issues?

      2 he had a good physical condition and that proves he was a power/control freak type person?

      Gee do you think you are being judgemental and shallow much?

      I have tattoos and muscles, best go lock myself up now before my true nature shows up and i kill my family and myself hey?

    • Sony B Goode says:

      10:22am | 20/05/11

      “This guy was an emotional problem anyway. He had tattooed the names of his family on his chest”

      I see, loving your kids so much you tatoo their name on your chest is an emotional problem???  Are you suggesting he should love his kids less?

      As far as the system goes, all I can see is when you push men into a corner with no sane or rational way out, its little wonder they take the only options you leave them.

    • Carz says:

      10:34am | 20/05/11

      @ Sony, If it was only his kids’ names I could accept that as love. The fact that he had his ex-partner’s name tattooed there as well, after they had separated, speaks of emotional problems and control issues.

    • Sony B Goode says:

      10:55am | 20/05/11

      Ok so he still loves his ex. that’s a problem? It’s a problem to demonstrate this? Looks like nothing more than free speech to me.

    • Jay says:

      11:05am | 20/05/11

      You’re part of the real problem Gladys. You sanctimonious and pious presumptions based upon what, I don’t know, are symptomatic of the kind of ignorant and persecutory thought that pervades society and allows the “Old Boy” school of thought to persist longer than it ever should have.

      I speak from experience and I have been subjected to 2.5 years of spiteful, vengeful, hypocritical and completely unwarranted behaviour from ex, and whilst all around me people of both genders were encouraging me to “fight fire with fire” I chose not to, because my moral compass was pointing in a generally correct direction. Guess what? I’m a man and a loving Father. Can you reconcile those two facts?

    • Cry in my Gin says:

      11:31am | 20/05/11

      The difference between people who have tattoos and those who do not. People with tattoos do not care if you do not have any.

    • TheRealDave says:

      11:35am | 20/05/11

      Gladys

      1) Whats wrong with tattooing your kids and missus name on yourself? In this morons case you have a point - considering he got his ex’s name tattood on himself AFTER they split up. Thats beside the point. I could have my missus and kids name tattood on me…doesn’t mean I am ever going to lay a finger on them or snap and kill them all.

      2) He wa s’riupped’?? The guy was a labourer on building sites…..not some latte quaffing fat bastard in front of a keyboard all day. Lifting heavy shit for 8 hours a day tends to put muscle mass on. How do you know he wasn’t into playing sport or generally liked looking afte rhis health. What a completely idiotic thing to suggest.

      The death OF ALL 4 PEOPLE was tragic, even the person to blame. Its not helped by idiotic, bordering on senile, remarks like yours.

    • Gladys says:

      01:58pm | 20/05/11

      Yup. I think tattooing the names of your kids and partner on your chest and photographing yourself to show it off indicates the guy was more about the talk than the walk.

      It’s like when people tattoo ‘honour, valour, constipation’ or whatever on their arms like they need to remember two or three words to live by. It wreaks of goldfish brain.

      Yup, I think that a guy who has a body that ripped, who is not an actor, model or footballer could have certain issues of vanity. I’m not criticising people who chose to be fit and toned, but he was ripped. Look at the pecks. He’s even fluffed them up for the photo.

      If you guys think that tattooing your kids names on you is a normal act, then there’s something seriously wrong with society. I carry a photo of my child in my wallet. I talk about her all the time. I love and adore her just as much as if I didn’t get a permanent mark in her honour.

      The other way to show you care for your children is to treat your partner with respect and affection when you are married and when you break up instead of instilling the fear of God into her that she’s going to be murdered or beaten by you?

      Or does having a tattoo of your child’s name exonerate you of all of the above? No wonder some people need to have ‘courage, valour, whatnot’ chiseled into their arms.

      The font he used is just short of the Gothic ye olde Englishe font that the criminals tend to favour. Whenever I used to get a letter typed in uppercase with excessive underlining, I knew there was something up with the writer. Same with the person who sent me a 10page CV in 8pt font. I interviewed her and she rattled on for 90minutes.

      These are all giveaways. One thing, two things, three things… gosh. Look what he did.

      Jay: I hear you. I don’t think all men are good. I don’t think all men are evil. But I am conscious of the CSA being punitive against men.

      I’m sorry your ex is being difficult but I’m sure in 20 years when you have well-adjusted and healthy grown up offspring, you will relieved you took the path you did.

    • TheRealDave says:

      02:52pm | 20/05/11

      The font?!?! Seriously?!? The Font now?!?!

      FFS!

      And still about the pec’s? Sowhen you see an attractive looking shiela walking down the street she’s got to be a hooker or something right? Because no ‘real woman’ would bother to make themselves look attractive or take care of themselves would they? They’re deliberatly psuing their breasts out or wiggling their hips seductively to attract clients right?

      At least we know where Esme Watson got to…....

      I bet you ring the ABC when you watch something that upsets you as well…..

    • Erick says:

      04:04pm | 20/05/11

      Latest scandal uncovered by feminist investigators: Sexist tattoo fonts!

    • Cynclic says:

      03:55pm | 21/05/11

      Maybe he was like me, Gladys. I got a tattoo with the names of my children so I feel closer to them since my ex moved them 500km away. I also got it so that my children, no matter how far away they are, know that they mean the world to me even though I don’t see them regularly.
      On a different topic, I loved the CSA information pamphlet I received when I first started paying Child Support. It advised me how I can still live life even though I was about to start paying a bucket load of money to them. The one that made me roar with laughter was how to cut back on entertainment by allocating $10/week toward it. I could have gotten a DVD and bottle of coke for that! A trivial point I know, but that is how unrealistic the CSA is toward life.

    • Cynclic says:

      04:02pm | 21/05/11

      BTW…“The other way to show you care for your children is to treat your partner with respect and affection when you are married and when you break up instead of instilling the fear of God into her that she’s going to be murdered or beaten by you?”....so even though my ex treated me like a dog after our separation and she and her new partner belittled me in front of my children, I should have to show HER respect? Our dear, Gladys. Oh dear! You have a very narrow view taken from the woman’s side only.

    • With you on this Gladys says:

      08:02am | 22/05/11

      With you all the way on this one Gladys. Say no more. The responses you get say it all. And therein exactly lies the problem. Aggressive overreactive guys .. run!

    • Outraged says:

      06:51pm | 23/05/11

      LOL! Gladys, you are a Body Fascist!

      If you get to make sweeping generalisations about male tattoo’s…then I call that all chicks with a Tramp Stamp are sluts.

    • Aaron says:

      08:45pm | 23/05/11

      Gladys the other side of this could be that tattoos are extremely painful (especially on the ribs) and as there are no wild animals to protect the family from etc, people choose to go through the pain of having their loved ones’ names tattooed on them to symbolise the suffering they would endure for their loved ones.

      Now you mention the font… oh no, guess all those bible-writers were and are criminals, as they seem to have a penchant for that particular font.

      You say the guy must have had control issues because he was ripped, however you then say it’s okay if they just like looking after themselves. As has been pointed out anyone in a labour intensive job will be well-built to reduce the possibility of injury AND because of the type of work they do.

      Remember the old saying? Never judge a book by its cover, what’s inside may surprise you.

      Just for the record I have no tatts or piercings, cos I’m a sook when it comes to pain.

    • John C says:

      09:47am | 20/05/11

      I have read the comments on this particular article and all I can say is that there is no excuse for a man committing violence on and/or killing his kids. There is no excuse for a woman committing violence on and/or killing her kids. There is no excuse for a step parent committing violence on and/or killing kids in their care. And there is no excuse for any of the above condoning or covering the violence up.

      I don’t care whether the offender had a bad childhood, or a raw deal from the Family Court or the other parent is behaving badly or what. No excuse.

    • Jim says:

      10:28am | 20/05/11

      Unless you’ve been through it John C you cannot imagine what it does to you! The taunting, the false accusations…the smug looks you get from a woman who knows they’ve just screwed you over for life.

      I knew a bloke years ago who loved his girlfriend and their little boy. He was a big guy but would hurt a bug. She had an affair, she chose to video some choice scenes and show him. She would follow him around screaming all sorts of insults to him and his family. She took everything he had, right down to the last shred of dignity he had left.

      He put a nail gun to his little boys head and then to his own one night.

      She went on Pluck-a-Duck on Hey Hey it’s Saturday the following week to try and win a car.

    • BTS says:

      10:02am | 20/05/11

      When you have an institutionalised system designed, programmed and some might say delights in fucking men over…these are the results.  The system doesn’t care about men (and anyone who says otherwise is living in fairyland) and whilst it doesn’t care, it won’t change and while it will never change - men, women and children will contine to lose their lives.

    • Jay says:

      10:18am | 20/05/11

      Women kill too and apparently the proportion of women out-weighs the number of men but the media chooses to perpetuate commonly held social myths. This article recognises the fundamental and damaging flaws in the current family law system but it should have gone further to do a “like for like” comparison on statistics between men AND women.

    • Gabby says:

      10:21am | 20/05/11

      Richard Eckerlsley is a great social scientist !
      From my view, a lot of comments point to men feeling victimised over relationship breakdown because women now have more support than in the past.
      In the past women were stuck in a relationship without support and if she complained of bad treatment she was breaking the rule of keeping up appearances in a patriarchal world.  I saw this happen in my family of origin.
      Women were nearly always a victim back then and through a lot of work by women together there is no need to be victimised any longer.
      Now that things have changed and women have received some power I feel it is time that men got together and worked on removing the stigma of failure that goes with relationship breakdown.  They can do the same as women !
      Men do need to support each other openly and this is not the usual process - men go alone and women stick together. So it’s time males took another approach for their wellbeing and supporting that these things happen and acknowledge they have a big part in it. Leave the ego outside the door, in other words - this is how women have dealt with it.
      As for tipping over the edge into violent acts - I believe it is part of the same question (though of course not for everyone) in that inability to deal with emotional needs sees an overload and loss of control resulting in a regretful and shocking act.

    • Sony B Goode says:

      10:34am | 20/05/11

      It’s not simply a case of “more support” the pendulum has swung nearly completely in the other direction. In these days of equality that doesn’t make sense.

      Add to that the actions of unscrupulous lawyers feasting on the corpses of dead and dying families and you have one of the factors perpetuating the system.

    • Erick says:

      10:42am | 20/05/11

      Gabby, if you read all the comments above, you will see that the problem is not “ego”. That’s simply blaming the victims. It is all about a vindictive system that deliberately punishes men for the crime of being a father.

      The surprising thing is not that some men snap, but that so many do not.

    • Gabby says:

      11:00am | 20/05/11

      Erick, My comments are wider than those who are posting here.  I think that being a victim of the “system” affirms powerlessness and the desire to lash out from that point of view.
      If men got busy, got together and worked on this as women have done and actually changed the “system” then men too would have their power back.  After all, who else can ?
      Blame brings no relief for anyone and keeps the anger cycle going.  Blame means not taking responsibility for change doesn’t it ?

    • Reggie says:

      09:34am | 22/05/11

      Gabby;  “Erick, My comments are wider than those who are posting here.”

      Heaping the responsibility on men for being inactive about fixing the problem sits rather uncomfortably in a debate over why some are violently pro-active.

      Gabby; “Blame brings no relief for anyone and keeps the anger cycle going.”

      Another word for blame is responsibility and holding men responsible for all the evils visited upon women simply ensures that the violent tip of the iceberg becomes larger and larger causing still more death, misery and resentment.

      As Erick says, “The surprising thing is not that some men snap, but that so many do not.”

      History has shown that when dissatisfaction reaches a critical level the peasants become more and more revolting and people quiver and fail. The really depressing material I read here shows a rising degree of dissatisfaction and that something needs to be done immediately to relieve the pressure that leads to tragedy such as the Queensland and the Melbourne ones.

      Women are going to pay a big price in this remedy for the simple reason that their claims and gains have become over-extended.

      Gabby; “Blame means not taking responsibility for change doesn’t it ?”

      Or as the psychologists like to crudely put it, “trying diligently to get someone else to carry your bucket of shit, instead of carrying it for yourself.”

    • Direct says:

      10:45am | 20/05/11

      There’s no way I’d ever get married in Australia, let alone have children, especially given the communities attitude towards fathers and men in general. The looks I get when playing with my nieces and nephews in the park are incredibly disturbing. It makes me scared to give them a stern word in case I’m reported for violent abuse. It makes me scared to give them a hug in case I’m reported for sexual abuse.

      Is it any wonder that in a sick society like ours that fathers have to resort to killing their own children just to protect them from a lifetime of abuse from mentally ill mothers and their partners in crime, supported by the state?

    • Muriel says:

      04:12pm | 21/05/11

      “that fathers have to resort to killing their own children just to protect them from a lifetime of abuse from mentally ill mothers and their partners in crime”.

      Is this for real?  The fact that someone in the community can actually make a shit-scary statement like this is actually quite terrifying.

    • Kika says:

      10:53am | 20/05/11

      I’ve never heard more crap in my life.

      “Men often connect socially through their partners and when that breaks down, their support network breaks down,” he says. This makes sense on an intuitive level. As any parent knows, their social network revolves around their kids, and the parents of their kids’ friends. When a man is denied access to the kids, the grown-ups disappear too”

      - What? Grow some bollocks. If this is true, this generation of Dads must be the biggest group of pansies ever. When I was a kid my Dad wouldn’t be caught dead at a ‘playgroup’ or my friend’s birthday parties. Not unless other Dads were there, with beers, and footy.

      “Men also tend to respond to their despair, their alienation, their isolation, through violence and drug and alcohol abuse”

      And women don’t? I know when I broke up with my partner of 9 years I certainly found the pub a good friend, especially those pints of Kilkennys.


      We live in a culture that celebrates success in individualism and materialism. Our sense of identity is determined by what we achieve in our own personal lives, and less on things that were once social givens, like shared cultural traditions, religious and ethnic affiliations and community attachments”

      What the heck does this have to do with anything? I’d like a greater explanation on what the author means. Are you talking about mixed marriages etc? Well like I said I was in a long term relationship with an ethnic Aussie man. I am now married to a non-Aussie man or another ethnicity, skin colour and religion to myself. I can tell you right now that I was never as loved, appreciated and satisfied in my previous relationship with the man who did share my ‘ethnic, cultural and religious and community’ affiliation.

      And you’ll find mixed marriages are on the rise across all demographics.

      “So the problem, according to Eckersley, is that men feel worthless when a marriage breaks down”

      I can tell you for a fact, that women also feel worthless when a relationship breaks down. Tit for tat. We’re all humans with feelings.

      We’ve effiminated men for so long now. Aussie blokes are no longer blokes, but soppy little babies who expect to get away with all their bad macho chauvinistic attitudes and then turn around and cry when the relationship breaks down.

      My ex-partner cheated on me, used me, made me get an abortion against my will (yes… was told it’s either the abortion or the stairs), never came home, teased me, made me feel ugly and worthless, raped me.. all these things so when finally I decided to end the misery he turned around and cried and winged and got all his family to try to defend him. Too late man. After a while his family understood the reasons why I left. But it made me feel good when I heard finally he was having a cry after all the days and nights I spent crying over him. He’s now moved on to have a completely ball breaking dominating girlfriend and by all accounts he is still depressed.

      I gave him everything we had because I was just happy to walk out. However I got custody of the dogs because I was their number 1 caregiver. That annoyed him, but to me, stuff it. He consciously made the decision to never come home and help me out with looking after them (puppies) and would rather be out drinking than being at home with me while I cleaned our house, looked after crying puppies and cooked dinner for him which he would never come home to eat with me.

      Women may cope better after a divorce because we talk. We talk about our feelings. We are better at reaching out when we feel down because that’s what we do. Aussie men are expected to tough it out and act like nothing ever hurts them.  And that’s where the issue lies.

      I’m so glad I never married that bstrd because my life would be hell now. That’s another thing wrong with Aussie culture - the ‘what should we do now?’ marriage. The marriage that happens because it’s either that or break up. The marriage is effectively the only glue holding the relationship together as without that, they have nothing else left. Then the necessary children come because apparently without those the newly married couple are left vacant without a relationship or a marriage to plan and the vast emptiness of a lifetime together becomes too much to bear. So babies come along to glue the marriage together… Babies grow up, parents realise that they actually do hate each other and should never have married in the first place and divorce.  The poor kids are then the innocent victims of a horrible custody battle between what he said, she said.

      It’s sad. We no longer value relationships, but everything in a relationship is about your own comfort and happiness instead of communal shared love and care for each other. Yes, it’s hard sticking in a bad relationship. I know this more than anyone. But if it IS bad, don’t get married! Don’t have kids! It’s better to be happy and alone than miserable and depressed.

    • Gabby says:

      11:18am | 20/05/11

      Kika - That wasn’t a man you had, that was a child.

    • gman says:

      11:39am | 20/05/11

      They said: “Men often connect socially through their partners and when that breaks down, their support network breaks down”
      You said: “my Dad wouldn’t be caught dead at a ‘playgroup’ or my friend’s birthday parties. Not unless other Dads were there, with beers, and footy”

      I’m not going to bother reading the rest of your crap.

    • Muttley says:

      11:51am | 20/05/11

      well thats one side of the story, wonder what your ex’s version would be? Its always good to get both sides eh?

    • Kika says:

      12:05pm | 20/05/11

      Gabby - you can say that again. That was his number 1 reason he couldn’t and refused to commit to our relationship. 9 years of basically a friend with benefits. A LOT of them.

      GMAN - Well, why don’t you comment on why you don’t want to read the rest of it? By ommission it appears you are conceding my points. My actual point about that is in the past men could be fathers, husbands AND MEN at the same time, and women could be wives, mothers AND WOMEN at the same time. It’s because these social lines have blurred we find ourselves in this exact predicament.

    • zoe says:

      01:16pm | 20/05/11

      Seriously Kika my husband can’t be a man because he has taken his children to playgroup?  I agree with gman

    • Kika says:

      03:55pm | 20/05/11

      Well maybe you should ask your husband whether he actually likes going to playgroup, or whether he goes because he thinks he is expected to go. Maybe it’s just me, but 99% of the men in my life wouldn’t have done that. Maybe I am stuck in the 80’s, but none of the fathers of my friends or my dad would have done something like that.

    • zoe says:

      08:51pm | 20/05/11

      Wow Kika, my own dad who is probably one of the manliest men I know a big solid tattoed truck driver (descended from viking stock) has taken his grandkids to swimming lessons even went in the mums and bubs class and taken them to playgroup one time when I was sick .  I dare you to call him a pansy.  Both him and my husband are both fathers and men.  Maybe I just have some pretty amazing men in my life and real men’s lives don’t have to revolve around football and beer.

    • Warren says:

      10:58am | 20/05/11

      “Is it any wonder that in a sick society like ours that fathers have to resort to killing their own children just to protect them from a lifetime of abuse”

      Is that a serious statement?

    • Gabby says:

      11:10am | 20/05/11

      Kika asks what this means - “We live in a culture that celebrates success in individualism and materialism. Our sense of identity is determined by what we achieve in our own personal lives, and less on things that were once social givens, like shared cultural traditions, religious and ethnic affiliations and community attachments”
      For me it means that we have become much too self-centred.  We are worried about our own skin rather than keeping up a cohesive caring society. 
      After all, we are easier to govern if we can be divided and conquered ! Old war trick !
      The family is a communal organisation and in an individualistic world this goes against the norm.  You won’t get a nice harmonious marriage without a lot of hard work when the rest of the world says you are an individual and need to look after yourself first.  No wonder we have such statistics !
      Add to that, we do not like failure in this acheivement culture and if our marriage fails because we were so busy getting on with our individualistic careers and lives and growth then what does that say about us ?  Seems a bit stacked against ensuring a relationshp harmony methinks !

    • Kika says:

      12:09pm | 20/05/11

      Agreed completely. A marriage isn’t about two individual people forming a ‘team’ anymore. It’s about 2 individuals wanting to fulfil every individual need and want before thinking of how the team will be affected by those needs. There is no ‘I’ in team. And that’s where we fall short.

    • sarah says:

      11:13am | 20/05/11

      One of my big issues with the family court… when my parents were divorcing my mother kept accusing my father of horrible things that simply weren’t true. With enormous financial and emotional cost, slowly but surely my dad fought and proved that she was lying and each time would be awarded costs… however the “costs” weren’t made to be paid immediately - so they kept building up and i suppose didn’t seem real to her…

      In the end my dad was just so desperate for the nightmare to be over after three years in court he generously settled (with what was left after three years) without her ever being punished financially or otherwise over all the lies she told.

      I was 24 years old so I’m grateful I wasn’t a child with no power to choose or something - but it frustrated my brother and I that the court never once just asked us if she was lying - we wrote affadavits, we naively ended communication with our own mother hoping that would get her to stop the madness - nothing made any difference and the psychological damage to my dad having a vro set against him (eventually removed) was just, horrific.

      My brother and I haven’t spoken to her in over 5 years now which makes us both so sad - we’re hoping one day she will apologise for trying to ruin our dad’s reputation, near bankrupting us and causing us all so much heartache.

      But I can’t help but wonder if the family court had just made her pay costs at least once, or actually formally charged her with perjury - could it all have been stopped years earlier and we would be able to have a relationship with my mother.

      Sob story over - so, so many worse off than us but basically a big up for all the dad’s out there fighting to have relationships with their children. One day the kids will be adults and you can have a good chat to them about what really went down - it is never too late to start again with someone.

      And of course the key is to always stay open to the idea of forgiveness…

    • Gabby says:

      11:27am | 20/05/11

      Having a mother with NPD I can understand your father’s experience.  Narcissists can lie, cheat and make a good story by projecting blame onto the “other”. Responsibility does not exist for these spoilt creatures.  Aussie culture doesn’t understand this disorder like the US does. It is insidious ! And here we perpetuate the “good mother” myth where in reality some monsters exist.

    • Kika says:

      12:20pm | 20/05/11

      My mother too. She’s an expert at turning and twisting absolutely everything to play the victim. Even if she is clearly at fault. A master at it. Nothing irks me enough than the myth that all mothers are goddesses. Likewise, nothing irks me enough that all fathers are blameless.

    • gytr says:

      01:33pm | 20/05/11

      Sadly I live in the hope that my almost 17 year old daughter will speak to me again one day.

      Yes, it’s another sob story, but it happened over 5 years after an amicable divorce, when I changed jobs, and maintenance reduced. When my daughter was 14, after she was of legal age, lies about maintenance amongst other things were told to her by her mother.

      Our last conversation ended with the daughter telling me I had never paid maintenance (despite the over $60,000 in 5 years) and never to contact her, she will contact me when ready.

      I live in hope she will one day just pick up the phone.

    • Al says:

      03:09pm | 20/05/11

      Sarah, I have heard of one woman and her new boy friend being charged for perjury for just the things you describe.

      I have also heard of a number of fathers who have sat back quietly and their kids, in time, did ask them for their side of the story. The mothers in these cases found themselves very lonely after the kids discovered Dad wasn’t the monster he was portrayed to be.

    • Forgotten Australian Family says:

      11:20am | 20/05/11

      I agree with Kika. Don’t have kids unless you are going to stay the distance. It is better to be alone than to be in a life-destroying relationship. However, Australians need to know how the long term effects of child abuse come through in the parents, and further generations. Give support and counseling to those who have long term unhealed scars.

    • Gabby says:

      11:48am | 20/05/11

      How do you get people to understand that their behaviour is linked to early abuse ?  How do you get them to counselling ?
      Many won’t admit to their abuse or think it was “normal” or that they were just “a bad kid” . 
      To admit they have a problem needs to come first.  To do that, for some, means admitting a flaw - not a good look !  Sadly…

    • St. Michael says:

      11:32am | 20/05/11

      There’s really only two points for me to make here:

      (1) Kika, further up the thread, said:

      “It’s sad. We no longer value relationships, but everything in a relationship is about your own comfort and happiness instead of communal shared love and care for each other. Yes, it’s hard sticking in a bad relationship. I know this more than anyone. But if it IS bad, don’t get married! Don’t have kids! It’s better to be happy and alone than miserable and depressed.”

      This.  Or more specifically, the last four lines.  If you don’t want to wind up in the Family Court, be very, very careful about who you choose to marry or enter a de facto relationship with—prevention is worth a hell of a lot more that cures in this case.  Most people seem to give more time and thought to which car they should buy than which person they should spend the rest of their lives with.  I’m not trying to say “you deserved it” to people who are in bad relationships.  Far from it.  But don’t get het up about the fear of being alone or breaking up.  By definition, every one of your relationships *will* end at some point.  Hopefully, it’ll be the last one you’re in will be the one that lasts the longest and is ended by death from old age.

      (2) If you want to fix the Family Court, don’t make it a Court.  Make it similar to a State Industrial Relations Commission, which in most states has explicit statutory orders to act according to equity and good conscience.  For bonus points, don’t make it an adversarial jurisdiction, make it an inquisitorial jurisdiction similar to the Coroner’s Court.  This smashes lawyers’  tactics into the ground because in inquisitorial jurisdictions the head of the court holds the ultimate power, not the lawyers.

    • T S Sebastien says:

      12:53pm | 20/05/11

      Best suggestions I have heard to date particularly regarding the Family Court. It seems fairly obvious that the current system is not working for the good of families or the community so it would be a welcome development to take the lawyers out the of the equation as much as practical. I suspect that given the fees they currently extract however that the legal profession would fight that development tooth and nail…

    • Tator says:

      03:51pm | 20/05/11

      St Michael,
      having had an unique perspective to the FCA in that not only have I been through the process of divorce and associated settlements, my partner worked for the FCA administration for an extended period of time and we still socialise with people who still work there.  As many here have also been through the wringer that is the FCA, it has affected my life and does so on an ongoing basis but I will try to remain objective about them.
      Firstly, the FCA and associated administration are a dysfunctional bureaucracy where it could be said that the inmates were running the asylum.  Most of the intake staff are overstressed because of the lack of concern held by management over security issues at the front counters.  It’s management has a blase’ attitude towards dealing with
      aggressive and abusive clients in the registry offices and fail to prosecute any offenders as they promote this warm and fuzzy philosophy about the court where they should be held accountable via OH&S for their staffs safety
      The judiciary and management staff have an attitude that the FCA is a warm and fuzzy place for family issues to be heard and dealt with and that the rule of law need not apply to it as they allow unsubstatiated evidence along with hearsay and non-expert opinion as evidence at trials when it should be a court of law with all associated protocols and procedures with regards to evidentiary processes that deals with family issues.  If you tried some of the stunts they pull in the Family Court in a criminal or civil court, you would promptly lose your case and be liable for costs.
      The court also needs to promptly enforce its own orders when they are blatantly being disregarded and make it easier to have its orders enforced.  Considering that most handovers occur on a Friday evening (assuming most have the “traditional” every second weekend contact period) it is too long between the Friday when contact is refused to the following Monday when the courts reopen for business.  This is far too long and even if you could contact the after hours service at the time, normally they just advise you to file a breach of order which still takes more time to be heard and in the meantime, the aggrieved party still misses out on time with their children.

      Also changes to legislation are required to enable state police services to enforce contact orders because as things stand now, only the AFP can enforce contact orders as all the state police services can do is to stand by to prevent any breaches of the peace and cannot take any action with regards to the order (This hasn’t been changed in the 22 years I have been in policing) .

      The system as it stands, is flawed and this allows biases to creep in to such an extent that it becomes institutionalised within the system and any reform has to remove any biases and return it to a place of procedural fairness.

    • St. Michael says:

      05:41pm | 20/05/11

      @ Tator:

      “Most of the intake staff are overstressed because of the lack of concern held by management over security issues at the front counters.  It’s management has a blase’ attitude towards dealing with
      aggressive and abusive clients in the registry offices and fail to prosecute any offenders as they promote this warm and fuzzy philosophy about the court where they should be held accountable via OH&S for their staffs safety”

      Out of interest, has anyone done a headcount of how many males to females are being aggressive or abusive?

      Other than that: this is very interesting and useful stuff.  More or less confirms my suspicions about the FCA.

      On evidentiary issues, in State IR Commissions it’s usually that “rules of evidence don’t apply, but they’ll usually be followed unless there are good reasons why they shouldn’t be.”  They also know how to deal with unrepresenteds, since there’s specific allowance for them (thank you, the union movement).  But like I said: the biggest thing you could do is make the system inquisitorial, not adversarial, and put some fearless Coroners Court magistrates in there.  Not childrens’ court; not DOCS judges; Coroners—because they don’t give a crap about being referees, they’re in there to get to the truth of what happened as far as possible and they don’t care who they scrape to get it.

    • Tator says:

      12:20am | 21/05/11

      St Michael,
      from memory, mainly males, but females are known to kick off as well.  One nutbag female ( known to actually have psych issues and detained under the mental health act shortly after during an unrelated incident whilst I was working ) actually threatened to shoot my partner who is now off work due to PTSD caused by incidents like this.  No action was taken by the court management apart from having this woman removed from the building by security.  Another incident was when a female solicitor took a swing at my partner because she was insisting that proper protocols on lodging documents be followed and the solicitor objected and swung a punch at her over the counter -  no action taken again after report made -  had it been me, I would have taken great delight in locking up a solicitor, they make such good prisoners (sarc// off)

    • stephen says:

      12:08pm | 20/05/11

      If men have children because, mainly, it is their ego and sense of power to do so, and women have them because, quite apart from their biology, (though not exclusive from it) they are culture nurtures, then, assuming all psychology of ‘revenges’ the same, why wouldn’t the motive for men killing their children and women doing the same, have different causes ?
      Think about it : we are quite different is nearly every way, and such an important, and some would say, neccessary, aspect of life, such as reproduction, would surely load a women’s mentality and spirit with greater things than a criminal set of adjectives i.e. revenge, etc.
      It just seems obvious that, as much to evaluate each crimnial act on its merits, is seems also plausible that, as much as ‘rate’ of a crime, or the degree of its negligence is important, so sometimes the ‘concept’ of that act, i.e. that a woman - a feminine gender - is responsible, would warrant special consideration.

    • Watcher says:

      12:14pm | 20/05/11

      I think most us are just horrified when these young children are murdered by a parent.  I honestly don’t know what can be done about it, you would have to be able to see inside a person to know if they will react in this shocking violent way. Some give warning signs but others just seem to snap and kill. Jealousy and spite and self interest seem to spur these cowardly acts. It seems to be on the increase, and its extremely distressing for the families and even those of us who don’t know them but do value life. I think in some circumstance the death penalty should be considered, but its hard to kill someone when they are already dead.

    • overit says:

      12:33pm | 20/05/11

      Regarding the most recent case.  Why would anyone have an ounce of sympathy for this animal.  Anyone, man or woman, who hurts, let alone murders, their own children is nothing more than a wild lion and not what I would call human.  Forget about what may have potentially tipped him over the edge.  He is supposed to be a father, a dad, a term of endearment.  Logically he is an extremely violent man and this would not be the first time he has been violent, angry etc.  That, more than likely, is why the relationship went sour.  He then goes on to commit this most henious crime and some people are having a man versus woman rant.  That in itself is ridiculous.  I have no sympathy for him and no one else should.  As for all the other stories in the comments above relating various stories about how bad the female species is, well I am sure there is another side to your story(s).  There are some truly shocking comments above which indicate people understand, sympathise and almost agree with murdering your own flesh and blood in certain circumstances.  There is no reason for anyone to hurt in any shape or form a child under any circumstances.  Let’s not put this murderer up on a pedastal for all the misguided and mistreated men to admire.  Men of the modern world need to grow up and be responsible, possibly even taking some responsibility for the relationship breakup.  Women and men should not break up over boredom or because there is a better offer down the street.  It is true the lines between man and woman are blurred but if we always put our children and spouse first before anything else we will have come a long way.

    • Gabby says:

      01:21pm | 20/05/11

      Well said overit !  Trouble might be again that individualism in that it is difficult for many to “always put our children and spouse first…”  After all, the crimes committed seem to be about the perpetrator’s needs more than the problem itself. 
      Perhaps we have to change the way men are parented ?

    • St. Michael says:

      05:23pm | 20/05/11

      Why don’t we try the radical concept that both men and women are taught to:
      (a) not kill their kids;
      (b) not abuse their kids;
      (c) negotiate amicably when there’s a breakup;
      (d) not abuse court processes or their children’s perceptions to their own selfish advantage so they can ‘get even’?

      These seem to be a bit more important than just changing the way men are parented, though that needs to change too.

    • jim morris says:

      12:40pm | 20/05/11

      Speaking from personal experience I can assure you that a huge part of the problem is caused by sexist attitudes and policy within the government departments that are supposed to help. When some men discover they are being screwed by the very people who are supposed to be helping them these types of tragedy occur, and have been occurring for many years.
      The women’s groups show that they are more concerned with power and politics than the welfare of children by consistently ignoring these volatile factors.

    • DAD says:

      06:48pm | 22/05/11

      Exactly right.

      While these governemnt agencies continue to regurgitate the these that being male is bad and female is good for children then it will continue to produce men that feel worthless and end up killing themselves, sometimes taking others with them.

      The Police, DoCS and Family Courts often all paint men as bad without any evidence. Interim DVOs are handed out by judges (who are supposed to make decisions on EVIDENCE) like psychologists hound out tissue paper.

    • John says:

      12:44pm | 20/05/11

      “When good mums go bad, and bad mums turn murderous”

      You would think we lived in a misogynistic society if you had that on the news headlines. The reality is man hate is not found in the majority of society, only radical feminists and some lesbians who believe in the marxist myths that men are oppressive. These marxist myths were created to divide the man and the women for the cause of International Marxism. From my observation women tend to despise weak men and non-dominate, girlie men. The feminists, then state masculinity in men is oppressive to women! Nature tells them something, and then the feminists tell them something else.

    • Gabby says:

      01:30pm | 20/05/11

      Glad you mentioned “radical” feminists as not all feminists are trouble!
      Feminists have done much to improve the lives of women who were suffering horrible repression from misogynists.  Why is it radicals who are often quoted by women haters ?
      Statistics show that most women will choose a less testosterone laden male for a life mate, preferring the more gentle style in the long term.

    • John says:

      01:20pm | 20/05/11

      Jay, your complicating things here. Men are only the oppressors. The notion that women murder their children is just fascist propaganda. That news report is fake, fascist propaganda.

    • John says:

      12:56pm | 20/05/11

      I also must state another thing, there are a majority of women, that have relationships with and marrie very dangerous men. Who are mentally unstable, abusive and don’t take crap from anyone, but also like to give crap. These guys tend to be very attractive to the ladies, because the dominating and masculine energy. The relationship usually goes in a cycle of abuse and i guess in some minority of case’s leads to the insanity of them killing their own wife’s, girlfriends and children, which is beyond forgivable. It makes me wonder why women mate or date with such men, who are most likely not going to be around when they have children, then other tax payers have to foot bill for the offspring of this man. The woman and the man must be blamed for this circumstance.

    • Kika says:

      01:09pm | 20/05/11

      Agreed. I learned this the hard way. I went for the bad boy and got burned badly. I guess it’s biology. You go for the man who’s more likely to get you more food and provide for your children and who’s genes are likely to result in good looking, strong, healthy children. You don’t pick the weaker one who stands back and lets the other stronger males do the hunting.

      There are so many women who actually like the big, tough, tradie (not saying all tradies are murderers or violent.!! It’s just the girls who like this type often also like tradies) types who end up getting hurt. Then the slowly have their self esteem smashed and they are too weak to leave, and think they love him so they stay and put up with the abuse because they are too afraid of him to leave.

    • Gabby says:

      01:25pm | 20/05/11

      From a psychological point of view “good” women have not been brought up in touch with their dark side, their own male side.  That takes them into the path of troublesome men who do not acknowledge their feminine side.  In essence neither wants to marry “themselves” !

    • Carz says:

      02:04pm | 20/05/11

      @John, you are kidding, right? I mean, you don’t honestly believe that abusive men show their colours right from the start, do you? I can tell you know if my ex had behaved in the start like he did at the end there would never have been a marriage. The simple fact is that abusers are master manipulators and know how to make themselves look good. They also have and answer for everything, right to the point of making themselves the victims so that people feel sorry for them. Abuse is insidious, escalating over time until the victim would be hard pressed to actually be able to point out when and how it started. It is very easy to miss the warning signs of an abuser if you have never been taught what they are.

    • Glen says:

      01:04pm | 20/05/11

      What is wrong with all you dads? If the ex-wife wants to raise the kiddies then stuff it… let her. She can put up with all the crap she will get when they act out in their teenage years for lack of a dad or living with “Steve the step-dad”. Go get yourselves a hot girlfriend and a new career.

    • zoe says:

      01:18pm | 20/05/11

      I agree I always tell my husband that if we ever got a divorce he could have the kids, guess who never wants a divorce.

    • Dave says:

      01:19pm | 20/05/11

      And can you honestly sit back and watch the B*tch F*ck up your children, physiologically damaging them for life?????

    • St. Michael says:

      01:58pm | 20/05/11

      @ Glen: the problem being that your said career is subject to child support forever and aye.  This wouldn’t be so much of a problem if CSA actually checked on where the money goes or if the money was being spent on your kids, but the anecdotal experience seems to be that they don’t and it isn’t.

      Not many hot girls willing to go out with a guy who’s on the poverty line due to child support payments.

    • TheRealDave says:

      02:28pm | 20/05/11

      Plenty ofd Single Mothers looking to top up their welfare and CS Payments though St Mick wink

    • St. Michael says:

      03:49pm | 20/05/11

      @ TheRealDave: I could reply here with Jay and Silent Bob’s observations about hanging around abortion clinics, but that would probably be in poor taste. wink

    • doingittuff says:

      11:12pm | 20/05/11

      yeah right!...like a hot girl is really going to be interested in you once she has learnt of your “stuff it” attitude…...you have just proved your level of mentality. Your ex wife will be doing it hard raising the kids but they will be with her for the rest of her life. You, on the other hand, will die a lonely old man.

    • Glen says:

      11:21pm | 21/05/11

      @doingittuff - have you ever noticed how chicks always dig the jerk? Well instead of being Mr Right all the time, be a selfish bastard tosser to her! Trust me they love it.

    • Jane says:

      01:08pm | 20/05/11

      Always comes back to, “what did the women do to push a good man over the edge”, usually supported by a sexist legal system and filthy low life lawyers!

    • MexicanBeemer says:

      01:21pm | 20/05/11

      I actually agree with the observations of the Social analyst Richard Eckersley and this leads me to a small problem and one that really should not be hard to oercome.

      In recent decades we have quite rightly come to understand that Violance is not the solution but what is not mentioned in any campaign but actually does re-enforce the anti-violence message and that it a correct way to deal with things.

      For example it shoudl be drummed into people’s heads that the best revenge you can have is to live well. in other words we need (sadly)

      To remind people that if a relationship ends, take it as an opportunity to re-connect with your hobbies, hit the Gym, get into shape and commit yourself to doing the things you want like buy new cloths or go on a oversea holiday.

      These are the best forms of revenge but for some reason and I can understand some people think they act options but in reality where there is a will, there is a way

      Bascially what we needed as a society is it to be made clear that a real man gets revenge by bettering himself and violence is for the weak.

      People will ask but what about the ex and her behaviour.

      Simple really when you are with the child or kids make sure they have a great time with you for when they have a great time with you that will surely go back to the ex and that in itself will hurt the ex more than actually yelling or hitting for she may come to regret letting the relationship end

      Adults tend to forget that childern actually do notice the hostile astmosphere.

    • Erick says:

      10:40am | 22/05/11

      What about violent women? There are just as many, but you only refer to men.

    • Anton says:

      01:34pm | 20/05/11

      As a seperated Dad I can assure you that men are discriminated against. I have experienced first hand a Victorian Police man tell me when I rang up when my ex threatened to contact them with a lie of abuse when I won a court hearing that ‘we’ll investigate violence perpetrated by a male cause it is a 100% probability it will happen.’ I have seen my ex leach of a lawyer tell her to tell a magistrate that I touched my kids. I have years of her ignoring of court orders when she deemed fit. I have endured the bias, lies and discrimination of the filthy child support agency. Their sole interest is how much money can they get and NOTHING to do with the welfare of children.

      And who loses out? Our children.

      You only have to look at the media to see the bias against men. Check the court reporting of sentences in the courts. Where is the Federal office of Men’s affairs? Where are the refuges - and no, one does not count.

      These reforms are nothing more than pandering to vested interest groups within parliament (notably the greens and looney left of the ALP) with the view that the fair sex needs more equality than men. And yeah, the feminists are to blame. Equality is just that - equal rights for all before and within the law.

      I for one will never stop fighting for my rights to be a dad to my kids and I will defy anyone to stop me.

    • Gabby says:

      01:56pm | 20/05/11

      Onya Anton !  So we can expect to see you start a movement for men to be heard and therefore improve their lives ?  You will lobby and work to prove that men are not the ones who perpetuate violence as the police seem to think it is ?
      That way men will stop being victims of that long list you just quoted and make some real changes to their experiences.

    • James1 says:

      03:58pm | 20/05/11

      In many cases, sadly (and as Tombowler shows above), these ‘parents’ care more about hurting their ex-partners than they do about the welfare of their children.  How terribly sad.

    • John of Brisbane says:

      08:50pm | 20/05/11

      I’ll back this up .. DOCS in NSW told my ex to say I abused the kids .. Police would not even investigate when I told them of this but I could not afford the legal costs either. I did not see my daughter for 15 years until my ex sent her to me because she got to hard too handle in her teenage years. My son won’t talk to me or my daughter (who he sees as betraying her mother). The courts don’t care about the children or the men. I was told by numerous lawyers that the Family Court works in reverse of all other courts in that you have to DISPROVE allegations and there is no onus on the party making the allegations to present any proof. We are doing our children no favors with this system. If parents can’t resolve a dispute like this then the children should be handed to their grandparents until such time as the parents come to their senses.

    • progressivesunite says:

      01:40pm | 20/05/11

      Sigh. I started writing a post about how each situation is different - sometimes the wife is at fault, sometimes the husband etc etc but after reading the other posts I think someone needs to put forward a pro-woman perspective to balance some of the misogyny….I’m NOT saying women are always in the right, never lie, never abuse their children, never abuse their husbands etc, but it’s also true to say that:

      1. Not all allegations of violence in the Family Court are “women’s lies”. Some women live in constant fear of violent, possessive scary men and their lives are in serious danger even when they’ve left them of being bashed, stalked, raped, murdered etc. This is a serious issue - it’s also seriously weird to imply that a man can be violent to his wife, but still be “a good dad” - no, he’s not, he’s dangerous.
      2. Some men seem to think that they have a “right” to custody of their children even if they put little or any effort into raising them when they were married to the kids’ mother. Women risk their bodies, in some cases even their lives, to bring children into the world and tend to give up their career and financial independence. I’d say that in most cases, it’s mum who leaves work when junior is sick, it’s mum who buys kids’ presents, it’s mum who takes a lot of the load. Not all the time. It’s ok to take this into account when awarding custody.
      3. It’s not women’s fault if men feel they’ve got “nowhere to turn” after divorce. Men are big people and can forge and maintain their own friendships and family relationships, just like women do. Nobody forces men not to talk about issues - there are GPs out there for a start if you’re really in trouble. Use them and get help - don’t blame your ex and, bizarrely, your children.

      As I said, I’m not saying women are always in the right, but neither are they always in the wrong.

    • Gabby says:

      01:51pm | 20/05/11

      Maybe it’s time to push for a non-kid family as the norm ?  After all the conditions are not terribly conducive to mothering and family llife, ie our population is overcooked , and so, it seems, are our relationships. Work pressures, mortgages, consumerism all affect relationshps.
      So relationships that founder due to lack of attention, nurturing and effort in this culture can simply be wound up and everyone moves on.  Just like a business relationship really !  And that brings us back to culture…...

    • Jay says:

      02:44pm | 20/05/11

      On point 2, I think you’ve actually missed the point of your own point by a country-mile, which is that the right of access first and foremost belongs with the child and not the parent! Do you have empirical evidence to support your notion that enough fathers are negligent to allow your pathetic, archaic and generalised summation to stand?

      Meeting the optimal needs of the child her/himself is not dependent on a point-scoring system instigated by either parent, don’t you think?

    • Joan says:

      01:41pm | 20/05/11

      “It hasn’t been a good week for disaffected fathers.”

      Oh, the poor dears.

      Not too flash a week for the kids they murdered out of spite either.

    • St. Michael says:

      02:00pm | 20/05/11

      Thanks for once again so unintentionally proving the point of most of the men commenting, Joan.

    • Anton says:

      02:03pm | 20/05/11

      Yeah, just like the mum who murdered her daughter just recently and lied about it for months hey Joan?

    • TheRealDave says:

      02:24pm | 20/05/11

      Because the kids murdered by their mothers or whoever their mother is rooting this week have had an awesome week Joan?

      Yes, poor dears aren’t they Joan?

    • John says:

      02:27pm | 20/05/11

      Yep maybe this women was suffering from mental illness and had nothing to do with spite right.

      http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8251459/woman-deliberately-runs-over-daughter

      As normal men are involved is it disaffected fathers not mental illness bought on by having thier children ripped from them but when it comes from women it is mental illness not spite. How many women go to court as they dont want thier ex husband to see his kids as well so they can spite them but yet yell for money money money and spend it on themselves.

      You have to ask how badly this man has been pushed to do this. Most fathers love thier children so much and to not be able to see them is a knife in thier hearts.

      progressivesunit if you think that men should just neck up as they are grown up then women should also. Lets then pull the 250 million given for women support.  As you say all must take responsibility right for what has happened in the relationship and look for help on thier own. But wait women are cant do this so they must be helped and men can so lets not worry about them. funny how you talk about heart ache, In a recent survey it has found fathers are spending more time at work, working longer hours and mssing out on quality time with thier children. How do you think this makes them feel, do you not think it hurts them when by the time they see thier kids is when they are about to rest and sleep or moving on with thier lives? Yes women face a hard time with birth and raising but do you think most men dont want to help or take more part in the bringing up of thier children or are you going to take the standard line that we only care for ourselves and use a small group of men to quantify your arguement.

      I agree that there are men out there who are pigs and mistreat women and there chidlren but then there are those who dont but treat and love thier wives and children hugely. How about the men who love thier children to bits but are told that they will not recieve shared custody but limted becos thier ex wives want to spite them.

    • RGG says:

      04:37pm | 20/05/11

      Wow, people sure do have their hate goggles on today. I mean, how else could they read the line “Not too flash a week for the kids they murdered out of spite either.”

      As:

      “Not too flash a week for the kids they murdered out of spite either, unlike those who were killed by women who I believe to be completely blameless.”

    • Joan says:

      08:54pm | 20/05/11

      Thanks, RGG.

      The reactionary defensiveness and bizarre assumption you refer to does speak volumes.

      I guess some people are too busy looking for excuses for child murderers to consider their victims.

    • Warren says:

      02:36pm | 20/05/11

      “proving the point of most of the men commenting”

      ... and proving that they don’t where responsibility begins and ends.

    • St. Michael says:

      05:31pm | 20/05/11

      FFS, has anyone on the page actually said women are always at fault or that there are no bad fathers?
      No?
      You don’t want to go back and check it again?

    • Mother of boys says:

      02:51pm | 20/05/11

      Pfffft.  My parent divorced when I was 6.  This is way back in 1971.  Guess who got custody of all 5 of us.  Our father!  Our father (I won’t call the bastard Dad) sexually molested my eldest sister who was only 11 at the time.  We had a housekeeper at the time that used to cook and clean for us.  She found out what was happening and blackmailed our father into marrying her.  She had 2 kids of her own (girl and boy).  Then of course, when my stepsister turned 13 he was sexually molesting her and then me when I was 12.

      Does this make all the males on this page bastards too?  No, but if I had daughters and broke up with my husband even though I know he would never hurt them physically - there’s no way he would custody of them.  EVER.  Since I only have boys and still have a happy marriage that will never happen thankfully.

    • Mik says:

      09:08pm | 20/05/11

      Mob, your male parent was a pedophile whose predilection was for girls of a particular age -he probably would have swooped even if your mother had been around. I am so sorry he betrayed you and that the other adult, the second wife, also betrayed you all.

    • greg says:

      11:54pm | 20/05/11

      Using the same logic, your husband should never let you have custody of your sons in the event of divorce. You might sexually abuse them, just like other mothers have.

    • Sony B Goode says:

      03:01pm | 20/05/11

      Short Men’s guide to surviving a hostile divorce

      Prepare in advance with a binding financial agreement for de-facto and marriage. Even if it says things are split 50:50 you will be way ahead. Ensure it has a custody plan and quarantines pre-exiting assets for both sides. The courts will dish out large percentages of pre-existing assets.

      Consider possible future changes including children, inheritance and health issues and build many future cases into the plan and how things should be split.

      Be aware Judges will overturn pre-nups for the flimsiest of excuses.

      Ensure your pre-nup is legal to the letter of the law.  Seek competent legal advice.

      Do not let a spouse become a café society dependent, if you have children put her back to work as soon as possible.  Ensure there is evidence you are responsible for 50:50 of bringing up the children, and that she is capable of looking after herself in the future. If a spouse can claim that she gave up a career to look after children you will pay for her “choice”.

      The actual separation:
      Join a men’s group as soon as possible, you will need all the support you can get. Friends and family will not understand what you are going through.

      If at all possible avoid lawyers and court, you will get no justice.

      If your spouse has a lawyer that is seemingly not engaging in meaningful negotiations, initiate mandatory mediation asap. A hostile lawyer will want to slow things down to give you plenty of time to lose the plot.

      If you can’t avoid court be extremely aware of efforts to inflame hostilities, if you demonstrate any animosity towards your spouse you will lose custody of your kids, the courts don’t want you infecting the children with your attitude towards your spouse. No one will explain to you this small detail until it is usually too late, if at all.

      It is better to cut down to minimum communications with a hostile spouse rather than allow them to accumulate fake, twisted or distorted evidence of your behaviour.

      Keep a diary of all contacts and details of witnesses, make sure there are witnesses.

      Be aware that any emails and communications including txts can end up in affidavits, you have no privacy and details of your personal life can be twisted and used against you.

      The court considers mere allegations of abuse as a factor in settlement and custody.

      Be aware that settlement split is based on custody. Also keep in mind you will be paying child support for a long time based on custody. CSA bonuses are based on amount of money collected.

      Also keep in mind that her lawyers driven hostility are based around money and that the long term interest of your children need to be considered. Most of the time her lawyers are working on a paid from settlement basis, so structure any payout such her lawyers get paid first, this will accelerate negotiations and settlement.

      It is not in your children’s interest to be at war with the ex. Keep firmly in mind that the situation will come to an end and you are in a no-win situation, the best you can do is to minimise the damage. Like being on a wild roller coaster which you can’t get off or a slow motion train crash, all you can do is protect yourself till it comes to an end. It will end eventually, usually once her lawyer has been paid.

      You will be told the courts are extremely wary of men trying to use the courts for revenge on the spouse, don’t even think of getting even.

      Understand very clearly that there is *NO* avenue of justice available to you.

      Getting on with and making the best of your own life is the best revenge.

      Meet with and detail your experience to your local MP to push for change.

    • Jay says:

      03:20pm | 20/05/11

      Excellent advice. I wish I’d had this provided to me at the beginning of my ongoing 2.5 year nightmare. Thanks.

    • Jay says:

      03:20pm | 20/05/11

      Excellent advice. I wish I’d had this provided to me at the beginning of my ongoing 2.5 year nightmare. Thanks.

    • progressivesunite says:

      03:52pm | 20/05/11

      There are probably women who could do with the same advice when their husbands do the same thing….Oh, sorry, only women are in the wrong…forgot…..

    • Jay says:

      04:23pm | 20/05/11

      Who ever said that women couldn’t benefit from the same advice? I was talking for myself and as I’m neither female or androgynous I am commenting (irrelevantly) from the perspective of a male, which goes with my particular “territory”.

      You’re quite reactionary in your retort and probably should think a little more about your response before committing it to virtual ink?

    • Glen says:

      04:31pm | 20/05/11

      Awesome advice. Methinks Sony must be a lawyer making good use of his client’s billable time.

      In all seriousness people, for men and women, an air-tight prenup is mandatory in this country. Marriage isn’t worth anything other then an airy-fairy expression these days. Break a prenup discussion to the significant other as “a show of commitment given there will be no rewards for backing out”.

      And guys - don’t be afraid to ask for a prenup - if she gets up and walks out chances are you just saved yourself a divorce down the track. What hurts more - loosing MAYBE a promising relationship OR CERTAINLY loosing your wealth, manhood etc. Plenty a fish…

    • MexicanBeember says:

      02:16pm | 21/05/11

      Some good points but if i could add a few

      If men really were serious about loooking after the child and not the ex then they can do two things.

      Always pay child supoport on time and set up a trust fund with a deed of arrangement that only the child can benefit upon reaching a certain age.

    • Robby says:

      10:05pm | 22/05/11

      indeed very, very sound advice
      One addition; don;t marry and have kids in the first place

    • Michael Tait says:

      03:14pm | 20/05/11

      Here you go ... statistical proof more mothers murder their children than fathers http://www.breakingthescience.org/SimplifiedDataFromDHHS.php ... stop believing the feministnazi BS PC rubbish ,  women are the kiddy killers by far 71% in the USA , and to use the pathetic excuse of PND or mental illness is invalid and just a pathetic cop out to get out of facing reality and accepting your justified punishment . Disgusting gender bias in society at the moment .

    • Gabby says:

      03:43pm | 20/05/11

      Michael,  There appears a huge gap in your knowledge about mental illness and personality disorders (I presume you meant NPD ?)  and their devastating effects. To invalidate those who have experienced the effects appears very insensitive and cruel.
      Perhaps a generalised opinion such as this is why we have so little money and resources allocated to it in Australia.  US mental health has it listed in their diagnostic texts.
      BTW, is this a valid site ?

    • Rachel says:

      09:38pm | 20/05/11

      The Australian statistics are 35% biological mother and 29% biological father. The very low numbers means that this is probably not statististically significant.

    • Jason Todd says:

      10:04pm | 20/05/11

      Gabby, I read that PND as Postnatal depression, and your NPD as Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Both bad, but different conditions
      Correct me if I am wrong.

    • Gabby says:

      12:28pm | 21/05/11

      Yup Jason.  PND for a while when I had chn and my mother NPD forever (incurable)  - ie her lack of empathy responsibility and unaccountability.  I fear an epidemic in this culture…....

    • Girl next door says:

      03:36pm | 20/05/11

      I have to say, I am sick and tired of women always find a reason behind their actions, even when they murder their own children (i.e. mental illness).  If you know you’ve got a mental illness, do you really want to create another human being, given the fact you cannot look after yourself?!
      I overheard a conversation at work the other day, two women in their early 30’s, 3 kids each from 3 different fathers, both divorced, talking how they need to marry only once more, and they’ll be set for life.  And there are number of women like that – no emotions, no genuine love and care – just money hungry, lazy feminist low-lifes.
      Guys, I do feel for you and am actually one of the advocates for better support system for fathers.

    • hmm says:

      03:59pm | 20/05/11

      Not so sure about your moniker.  Are you sure or do you want to come clean?

    • progressivesunite says:

      03:45pm | 20/05/11

      God the woman-bashing isn’t letting up today is it? Did you learn “women bad, men good” at men’s rights class?

    • Jay says:

      03:57pm | 20/05/11

      Again, you’ve missed the point, failed to understand the issue and resort to almost primal retort. Well done. Needs more effort though.

      The whole point of all of this discussion is trying to state that both sexes are capable of committing these type of atrocities but society/media seems to choose to focus on the “historical” aggressor.

    • Filby says:

      04:27pm | 20/05/11

      How strange that a progressive thinks a system that transfers wealth from men to women is good, and that anyone opposed to it is a misogynist. Who would have thought! Let’s all step back into the correct frame:

      men greedy - women needy=redistribution

    • Fiona says:

      07:55pm | 20/05/11

      No, it isn’t, as demonstrated by @filbys comment.

    • Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

      08:58pm | 20/05/11

      Funny isn’t it when I tell people that my first 2 wives were violent, women invariably say, “well you must have done something to provoke them”. Yet if a man was to suggest to a woman that had 2 previous partners who were violent that she had provoked it, you wouldn’t get out unscathed, funny that

    • Gabby says:

      04:22pm | 20/05/11

      “money hungry lazy feminist low-lifes…” yep, all out of our individualistic culture as Eckersley suggests in the subject of this discussion.  Women encouraged to be so self-centred and shallow and shop, shop, shop, with no responsibility.  Encouraged by the trashy magazines, having children with govt support just to make more consumers for this country…. what can we expect ????
      I too advocate better support systems for fathers - and they are out there - but have fathers joined ?  That is the real question !

    • MexicanBeember says:

      02:08pm | 21/05/11

      Gabby - I think you may be mis-reading what the social researcher is saying.

      I think we both would agree that Women did not invent the moden western world and it itself is not the problem.

      The problem is some Men (they are really boys) just have not learnt how to be men! ironically a real man never hates women and usually is surrounded by plenty of women but these boys have become so disconnected that they have become obessed with being negative.

      Bascially the support systems are too wishy wasty and would be better if they were blunt and actually pointed out to these boys how they should deal with things.

    • Gabby says:

      05:16pm | 21/05/11

      Mexican Beember : I do see the big picture modern western world as the problem.  It is the disconnection from the cohesive community of which Eckersley writes. .  Without extended family support people are struggling.  The individualism of the modern western world divides and conquers so that it is more difficult for people to feel supported.  It is assumed everyone can look after themselves and indeed, as you say, men obviously cannot.  It’s possible men do feel abandoned in this system and now they are floundering about knowing what to do.  So yes, directions needed.

    • bikinis on top says:

      04:31pm | 20/05/11

      it is mothers day this month.
      Fathers are discarded shortly before child birth.
      If not, fathers day is in September!

    • The Liberal Loafer says:

      04:33pm | 20/05/11

      my dad is in the Masonic Lodge! Is that a good dad or a bad pop?

    • Michael Tait says:

      05:17pm | 20/05/11

      I know exactly what I was saying Gabby and what I was saying was 100% correct. PND = Post Natal Depression and I lived with a woman who was a schizophrenic so I understand all to well about mental illness. It is a disgraceful cop out to excuse a woman of murdering their child as not a murderer because of PND or mental illness, murder is murder. You think that Paul Rogers actions were the actions of a sane person ? I think not, IMO he was clearly insane to commit such a heinous crime but does it excuse him ? NO it doesn’t but don’t let the facts get in the way of your argument Gabby !  BTW absolutely reputable website cited by me its just bad luck the info doesn’t suit your agenda .

    • Gabby says:

      06:11pm | 20/05/11

      With more information you have provided on your experience Michael Tait I can certainly see your point. Living with the mentally ill is fraught with problems.  I do not believe the murder of children is excusable in any way - by men or women.  I suffered from PND when I had my children, back then having no access to any help, and I know that I was completely lost having a narcissistic mother who wanted me to mother her instead.  I became very distressed and received no help from a system that expected women to automatically know how to parent, a stupid belief in the maternal instinct being natural for women !  So I believe that PND can make women insane, at least temporarily,  just as possibly the acute helplessness and inability to cope by Paul Rogers created temporary insanity and he committed a heinous act.
      The truth is that not all women know how to mother and must learn. Some women become totally overwhelmed with the responsibility of another human being when they can barely take care of themselves let alone a relationship.  Men are often no help at all in these situations.  So perhaps it follows that not everyone is skilled at relationships either.  We all stumble along hoping for the best.
      Still, the point of Eckersleys writing is that we are less and less able to cope with the strains of our present selfish world and that something has to shift.. 
      Parenting is the most important job in the world and the one that has the least amount of training !  Having children never saved any marriage, but rather put further strains on an existing problem.

    • Richard says:

      07:48pm | 20/05/11

      If Australian women weren’t such despicable Schloyts

      What can you expect from the dorters of convicts

    • Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

      08:52pm | 20/05/11

      The first person to hit a child is invariably the mother, yet this is often hidden or downplayed, with excuses like “poor thing stuck at home all day with a screaming kid, she just snapped, she couldn’t help herself” the poor thing was stressed.The fact that she could have walked out of the house & left the kid in it’s cot seems to get lost.

    • Gresta says:

      08:59pm | 20/05/11

      @ Gabby - your latest response is full of excuses (not unlike majority of your responses) - quite pathetic! If only women relied more on their natural instincts and less on “know it all do-gooders”, we wouldnt have many problems of today. If only people accepted responsibility for their actions instead of finding excuses in depression…Yes, there are some genuine cases of depression, accent on “some” - majority of cases are just incompetent people, looking for excuses for their own shortcomings. Were you one of those mothers that couldnt breastfeed, too?! You are an example of woman that should never be allowed to procreate - incompetent and full of excuses.

    • Gabby says:

      12:20pm | 21/05/11

      Okay Gresta,  I really think such rubbish doesn’t warrant an answer but just so you know I have two very successful grown sons with emotional intelligence. 
      Following my PND I decided that parenting was a role I needed to educate myself for and so I did. 
      I also graduated with a degree in social science recently to learn more about the world in which my family is living - which was kind of responsible don’t you think ?

    • Gresta says:

      06:18pm | 21/05/11

      @ Gabby - the sad part is that you needed to educate yourself in being a parent - I suppose spreading your legs and getting pregnant in the first place was natural for you…... It is sad that you needed a degree to parent your children….. Where are your natural instincts?! Killed by too much drugs and booze?! Also, you just graduated?!......You are in your 50’s arent you…...most of us graduated in our 20’s…....very sad….catching up on your life…...I hope you get to your destination soon…...

    • Survivor says:

      11:46pm | 20/05/11

      More than 4 men will commit suicide today in Australia. Another 4 men will commit suicide in Australia tomorrow and another 4 everyday this year. Except for the holidays when the rate goes up. Especially Christmas Day. 77% of suicides are male. http://www.mindframe-media.info/site/index.cfm?display=84340&filter=i&leca=306&did=80141707

      And that is just the official count. By some estimates, it is probably almost double that rate. More deaths are attributed to suicide than motor vehicle accidents yet we are bombarded with road safety campaigns. Does any of this make you wonder is going on with Australian men?

      It is all too easy to brand these few incidents as “bad” dads but the stark reality is there is a simmering problem in Australia and elsewhere that needs attention. And it is not getting better. Over 30% of our boys are growing up without a significant male role model. The best we can offer up are “footy stars”.

      What do I know? I have been to the depths of depression and back. To the point where I was curled up in a ball on the floor hoping the earth would devour me. Crying like a baby. Where being awake was indescribable pain and death was an invitation to relieve it. The breakdown of my marriage did that to me. To most people I looked like an ordinary guy. Professional Civil Engineer. Working hard to build a new life in Australia. Young family. Two young sons. I cared for my wife as best I knew how. A wife who had an affair that I discovered on our 12th wedding anniversary. Life as I knew it stopped. Unemployment followed because that’s what happens when you can’t function properly. It became a long dark road. Much the same as Eckersley describes. At some point, I found the courage to look for help. The kind of help that didn’t require me to “man up” or “pull myself together”. A kind of help that sat with me in my pain until the pain taught me the lessons I needed to learn and to open up a journey greater than I would have encountered in my unhappy marriage. That has been my salvation.

      So you see, not much separates me from other “bad” dads. I had more than one “dark” thought. I had the anger. The grief. The desire to strike back. I just managed to find a path that made all the difference and avoided the worst excesses of the situation.

      I am now part of an organization that works with men in mid-life who come to a point of crisis. It is hard work. There are no government funds to support the work and it is entirely funded by personal donors who don’t even qualify for tax relief. Australian men aren’t even worth that. We care more about boat people than we do about our men. We care more about cruelty to animals than we do about our men. Australian men are in crisis and we don’t want to talk about it because to admit it would mean we might have to acknowledge our shadow or that going and hiding in the shed is not some romantic blokey action but a withdrawal from society. It is where we call numb, stoic and hold up stoicism and some great character trait. We talk about mateship but very few men will ever experience it. Better that you go out and buy a bigger TV to demonstrate your manhood than actually acknowledge you might need help.

      There is hope and there is life after the breakdown of your relationships. But you need to admit it to yourselves first. Then go and do the hard yards to face yourself and embrace all that you are and all that you are not. 9 years later, I have a good relationship with my ex-wife. We set our children as our shared priority and agreed that they were not part of our problem. It works.

      If you are male, you will probably struggle with this and call it BS. If you are female and reading this, tell me it is not true.

    • Gabby says:

      12:14pm | 21/05/11

      Thank you for this post Survivor !  This is exactly the sort of conversation we need to be having as to why Paul Rogers did what he did and why there is little help out there for men. 
      Surely the actions of one desperate and deranged man should encourage more action and less blaming of women, of systems, of everything but taking a stand.  We are all responsible for the need to change.

    • NeverRelyOnPolice says:

      07:37pm | 22/05/11

      @Gabby : “To the point where I was curled up in a ball on the floor hoping the earth would devour me. Crying like a baby.” I was like that when I took my child to the police station when my was threatening to kill me.

      What the police did was to tell me to see the mental health clinic (which had previously turned me away when I had complained to them about domestic abuse).

      All of these agencies have signs on the wall about Domestic Violence but ignore men who ask for help.

      It IS reasonable they be held accountable for the sexist attitudes in their responses to victims of abuse. Men should not have to develop a completely new police force just to uphold the law for them as you might want to suggest.

    • Kaz says:

      12:41am | 21/05/11

      I always find it telling when men talk about women “getting themselves pregnant”, as if she did it herself. Given how unscrupulously some women behave (which so many of you like to bang on about endlessly), why aren’t you chaps a little more careful about where you put it? And why is it, whenever men are asked why their relationships broke down, they often blame everybody else but themselves?  I attended a Dads In Distress meeting with my partner and the constant refrain was that “the law made it too easy/financially rewarding for her to leave”. In fact, not one of the 20 men there took ANY responsibility (much less 50%) for the end of their relationships.  Many of them claimed that their wives/partners had left them “out of the blue”. Come on! As if being a single parent is so financially rewarding! And people generally don’t end their relationships lightly (of course there are exceptions)  - there is usually a great deal of soul searching that goes on for a long time beforehand. Why not start by having a think about what happened, instead of constantly blaming the courts, the system, the feminists…? How else do you stop the next relationship failing and the situation repeating?

    • Govt@FauxCitizen says:

      08:48am | 21/05/11

      We can excuse bad upbrining as the reason for who we become in adulthood and it is a fact that we learn Parenthood from our parents Real men need a male mentor as Real women need a female mentor as role models but I fear that this is an epidemic getting out of control in the synthetic world in wich quite a few live, the problem is of course that some will produce a child and pass on those shitty values and poor role modeling, I realy feel for the kids produced by lesbians from a turkey baster, deliberately denided a father from conception.

    • Jeff Johnson says:

      09:33am | 21/05/11

      Funny how strong and pervasive the anti-male sentiment really is. I have nearly completed my Post Grad Diploma in Education. During our group conversations and workshops, it is often stated by many pre-service teachers that boys are naughtier than girls and, all things being equal, boys are a much less desirable element in the class room. This sentiment is broadly accepted as truth, and as I am the only male in the room 30 university students (the rest being female), there seems to be little argument. This whole attitude exists in regards to men, and is especially evidenced in the judgement of Judges and family law courts which continue to favor women over men when granting custody. It is considered as though the natural place for children is with the mother and and it is in the best interests of the children to be with their mothers rather than their inherently naughtier and irresponsible fathers. There are a lot of deadbeat dropkick dads out there but lets face reality; only a dropkick would be stupid enough to marry a dropkick and birds of a feather really do flock together. Perhaps there are as many deadsh*t mums as there are deadsh*t dads. But lets not get to logical about this. And I must be up front to all those women out there about something - yes I do have testicles and I am not ashamed of it.

    • Michael Tait says:

      09:55am | 21/05/11

      @Gabby, I appologize if I came on a bit strong and in fact we generally agree. I’m sorry to hear of your past trauma and hope you are moving on. You are so true about narcissists, the lady I refered to as being a schizoprenic has an overbearing narcissistic controlling probably sociopath mother who dominates her life and ruined it for us . Australia needs more funds put into mental health care and more funds need to be availabe to help men in distress like Paul Rogers to prevent this sort of tragedy occuring. Also reform of the family court,DOCS/CPS needs reform etc in fact the list is almost endless.

    • Gabby says:

      11:52am | 21/05/11

      Amen to that Michael !

    • Fiat Lux says:

      11:40am | 21/05/11

      The murder suicide last weekend involved a ‘‘De Facto’’ relationship of 8 years standing . People with a moral compass get married before they have children even if it means a ‘‘shotgun wedding ‘’ . Australia is the most irreligious country in the world and here the Ten Commandments mean nothing .

    • Gabby says:

      02:01pm | 21/05/11

      Fiat Lux, are you serious ?  It was the church in league with politics that put shotgun weddings into action and caused hundreds of miserable and mismatched people to suffer !  Oh but never mind, we got lots of workers for the factories back then and couples with no support dare not separate for fear of losing face.  Spare me the moral compass story !  What sort of institutions tortures its members for life by insisting they marry and they and their children suffer ever after ?
      Just what difference would marriage have made in this case pray tell ?

    • Ray says:

      03:20pm | 21/05/11

      Ant, I haven’t had time to read all responses. Suffice to say that anyone who kills their kids should be vapourised.

      However we have societal stereotypes playing havoc here. Firstly men who kill their kids are not sane. Women who kill their kids are not sane.  Women have a convenience of post natal depression to facilitate infanticide.

      My daughter is like my own right arm times big to me, and removal without anaesthetic is likely to provide extreme, serious mental trauma. Never the less harm would never enter my mind. Likely if I had post natal depression I can guarantee harm woulkd also not enter my mind.

      What I would like to say is we should never address this problem with stereotypes like janet Fyfe Yeoman’s headline IF I CAN’T HAVE THEM NO ONE WILL’. It requires deeper thought than presenting such irresponsible headlines.

      My only hope is that any law reforms take in wider scopes than the narrow stereotype mindset. Such things as all men are violent bastards wanting to own and dominate, Women are gentle vreatures who can do no wrong.

      .

    • Kaz says:

      04:26pm | 21/05/11

      Sure, Ray!  Post-natal depression is such a convenience! However, if you’re referring to ‘excuses’, men have plenty of their own, the most commonly used being that he was somehow “pushed” into it, by the CSA, the courts, the system.  I think cause and effect are being a bit confused here.  Maybe people who kill their children have massive problems TO START WITH - well before any legal system or government departmen ‘provokes’ them Maybe that’s largely why their relationships fail and the courts are involved in the first place.

    • Silaus Crane says:

      04:30am | 22/05/11

      Here is My experience with the Family Court; Kaz,  albeit it was some years ago. The Court system was firmly behind the mother as the primary care giver. The first thing my wife was told by her lawyer was to take out a DVO for verbal abuse as it will strengthen her case. There need be absolutely no proof. No blame is attributed by the Court, your ex wife may be having a long term affair or running off to set up house with her lesbian girlfriend it plays no part.  The fewer assets you have and the less the Lawyers are involved the less it will cost you.  Division of assets means everything is valued, including superannuation, for a 70/30 or 80/20 split depending on the number of children under seventeen.  If you own a business, you will probably lose it. No concern is given by the Court as to how you (the Father) will survive afterwards ... You do not realise it at the time but you are probably chronically depressed,  everything you have worked for or cared about is gone, it is very easy if you have been through the system to understand how people become manic depressive, suicidal or just snap.

    • Luke says:

      09:58pm | 30/05/11

      You do not know what you are talking about. Your comments are so offensive to someone who is in this disgusting system

    • Ray says:

      06:14pm | 21/05/11

      KAZ, the difference is I am talking about BOTH genders.ie society as a whole.

      You just exemplify what I am saying. A closed shop mindset

    • Kaz says:

      07:24pm | 21/05/11

      As am I, Ray - you’ll notice I referred to ‘people’ who have problems, not ‘men’. Yet already, you’ve decided that because my name sounds female, I’m the enemy.

    • Cynclic says:

      01:11am | 22/05/11

      @ Warren @ 10:58 - We can only hope it isn’t a serious statement, Warren. I have never thought such evil; even after a bitter split. I have, however, contemplated taking my own life at my lowest ebb. Fortunately I was brave enough to recognise the affect this would have on my children and the rest of my family. It’s difficult to explain the train of thought you go through at such a low point in life. You know you’re a good man and a good father but the seemingly endless battering you receive from the ex, the police (due to an ex-wife that “*played the ex-wife playbook page by page”:- *the female’s magistrates words), the CSA, the Family Court and the solicitors…well it makes you feel worthless. It takes away all your pride to such a point where death / suicide seems the best option. I even tried to garner support to take this hopeless attitude to parliament once but the constant belittling we’d suffered had beaten us so much that we sadly didn’t think it worth our while. I’ll NEVER defend those that take the lives of their children but, after being in a similar position myself, I’ll forever defend those at the end of their tether that can see no better solution other than suicide. I’m not asking for equality from the Family Court or CSA; I just want understanding. I’m willing to pay to support my children but I still need to be able to clothe and feed myself without paying rent to somebody for the next 10 - 18 years. I still want a life and an inheritance for my children. I don’t want to to see us go back 100 years where the man was the alleged best option, but I also don’t want to continue suffering due my ancestors neanderthal attitude. Balancing my ex-wife’s, my children’s and my needs is all I want.

    • Ray says:

      07:28am | 22/05/11

      Kaz, your comprehansion is poor. You’ve gone from MEN who use the ‘CSA, courts, the system’ as excuses . Then talk of ‘people’ who have massive problems well before any system or government department ‘provokes’ them. That is grammatically still linked to ‘MEN’ being the subject, not ‘people’ as you conveniently wixh to claim..

      So in typical dishonesty and female logic you wish to muddy the water to deny your clear intent.

      As I said KAZ peopl such as you are the problem. You also no doubt wish to deny that to remove a child from its father, unless in extranious circumstances where child safety is an issue, may have devastating effect oin a father that equates to PND. In no cases PND or jilted fatherhood warrants forgiveness.  The bottom line is NO ONE SHOULD HARM CHILDREN.

      PEOPLE should also not be able to use the law to their own personal advantage.

      And this is the feminist path, in wishing to change the Family Law Act which was already convened in massive gender lopsided environment.

      Address the matter of men or women harming children, without assuming the stereotyped character flaws of men. My character flaw is that I would forfrit my life for my kids without reservation.


      It’s not the Family Law Act (a weapon for women) that needs addressing, it is the LAW and society which includes men and women.

    • ever wonder? says:

      07:29am | 22/05/11

      Don’t know if anyone noticed but there’s a fair amount of disgruntled men responding and the odd single woman here and there putting in her 5 cents of ‘knowledge and wisdom’ about the subject.
      I wondered why we don’t get more of a response from mothers? And then I realised, of course, they haven’t got time, they’re all busy working fulltime to make ends meet as they are raising their children all on their own.

      Most mothers don’t have the luxury of time to come to this forum winching and whining about the dead beat guys that left them holding the baby.

      Because these mums are way too busy taking care of the next generation including keeping them safe from said whiners.

      Anyone ever wonder why she left him? You can be assured it is not for the 300 odd dollars/week centrelink payment which doesn’t even pay her rent, let alone pay for anything else. Nor did she leave so that she could be elevated to the status of single mother ready prey for any predator. Or to end up in a housing commission home with her kids or for the endless court battles with her ex who is now demanding to see the very kids he never had a moment time for whilst they were still together.

      She actually didn’t leave him for a long long time because she knew that leaving him, he was going to get even more aggressive than he already was and she already feared for the safety of her kids and herself.

    • Jeff Johnson says:

      10:14am | 22/05/11

      Yes, well your opening statement seems to suggest that those hardworking single mums would not need the $300 from Centrelink - because the women are working and earning. There seems to be some contradiction here. Of course you mention “her kids” living like dogs in housing commission, but I wonder if they are “their kids” rather than “hers” and I think this comes full circle to what the topic is broadly about; i.e. why are the fathers so often precluded from any meaningful involvement with the children. P.S. remember that only a deadbeat mother would marry a deadbeat father. The good women had more brains and were more discerning in their choice of partner. Sorry that is simply fact.

    • Your name:JB says:

      07:45am | 25/05/11

      You have not seen the women’s/mothers forums?? You have not seen the amount of time feminists appear to have to distribute their mysandric world views?

      Go have a look at who does most of the writing about gender and then come back!

    • robby hart says:

      07:41am | 22/05/11

      Mate, having some woman you trusted take your kids away and play games with visits tears your heart out.

      I had it happen to me, 25years ago now and today I hate that woman even more as I found out more about what she actually did. I won’t go to the city she lives in as I know what’s likely, still after all this time.

      She stole my kids while I was at work one day and 5 years later threw my son out of his home. He is a mess and will be so for the rest of his life.

      I don’t know what the answer is but, to me, those wedding vows meant what they said when I spoke them. She didn’t mean it clearly.

      I’ve told her to never be in the same city as me in case we meet as I’m likely to do anything, just sheer rage.

      We had two children and I’ve lost contact with my son as he’s so angry. My daughter and I still get on well although she lives in that city.

      I remember when it happened my first reaction was to walk away and forget all of them. Today I think that would have been the best choice, I really do. So much pain for all of us so far could have been left behind.

      I won’t marry again, never despite having a longer relationship and 2 children with my current partner. I ould not do that again.

    • John Findlay says:

      07:52am | 23/05/11

      I would love to know how many of the DVO’s were for things like txt messages ?  When a family breakdown happens of course nastie words will be said. With the current system words of anger with your ex of 20 years are no different to words of anger with a stranger ! The system of DVO’s is being abused by people who use it as a tool of revenge, mean wile the people who REALLY need protection are being failed by the system because of it. THE BOY WHO CRIED WOLF !

    • Robert says:

      10:24pm | 23/05/11

      John F: recent US studies around the issuing of AVOs/IOs by women [the vast majority] project that roughly 18% are genuine. I attended an earlier Senate hearing on the subject and [along with the other non-ALP MPs] were flabergasted when we heard more than 120k were issued in NSW alone per annum].
      The hearing heard only from feminazis and one stammered when asked how many women had done time for a FCA breach [and I have heard of some women with >70 breaches] “a women in SA was detained at a Station for an hour.” Even that blurted out lie drew gasps. So the pollies had no idea of the system they created.
      Any lawyer now working in family law will advise women that standard procedure is:
      - issue an AVO
      - call the police to say the guy is a suicide risk
      - throw an abuse claim
      - sick the CSA on asap
      Now this is what we’ve been reduced to in 21st century Australia. Put yourself in guys’ shoes when you’ve done absolutely nothing wrong, have this thrown at you as a diversion [and you have to prove you’re not guilty, not vice-a-versa] and denied access to your kids.
      And usually for two reasons: money and unqualified revenge
      And this is repeated hundreds of times a day in Australia.

    • John Findlay says:

      08:39am | 22/05/11

      Unless you have been through it you have no idea of how ilogical the whole system is. The decishions being made by goverment departments against in particular fathers is criminal in itself. I myself have been threatened with jail time for non threating, non abusive txt messages all because I wanted to see my kids (I have a DVO for a txt message I sent when my ex got involved with a cult) She then used the DVO to show my kids that I was a BAD person and I havnt seen my 2 oldest kids now in 4 years. Mr and Mrs Average will say all sorts of things about going to court or try this and try that, after I wile you discover that you have just become an income stream for a lawyer with no positive outcome and more ammunition that your ex partner can feed your estranged kids.
      See this link to a recent court ruling to see the madness of the system.

      http://www.theage.com.au/national/mother-wins-custody-despite-delinquent-attitude-20110103-19duh.html
      I only want to have a relationship with my kids unfortunatly many mothers out there (and some fathers) choose to use their kids as a weapon.
      Please support Mick Fox’s cause, No child or parent deserves to be pushed to the edge of madness.

    • JinNSW says:

      09:24am | 22/05/11

      Eckersley is quoted as saying “So the problem”, according to Eckersley, “is that men feel worthless when a marriage breaks down.”

      Perhaps it is more that men are TOLD they are worthless by society when their marriage breaks down. Men are regularly denied access to their own children because of suspicion of danger tot hem. The evidence (in my case at least) is as little as an untested DVO application from a police officer who never met me.

      The entire system is based on the suspicion of men being bad and women being good.

      If men are continually told they are bad and worthless parents then society should not be surprised when that is EXACTLY how men end up feeling.

      Men who report Domestic Abuse are told by NSW Child Protection and NSW Courts they should not be able to supervise their children.

      (And its not only Federal Courts that deny access to children as [RGG says:12:15pm | 20/05/11] implies. You would know that state orders about children are transferred to the Federal System to retain consistency)

    • Kaz says:

      10:49am | 22/05/11

      Any ‘system’ can only be as good as the people it represents, plain and simple. Whether you like it or not, the system is ‘us’ and has evolved that way because of our values and community standards. And whether we like it or not, women have traditionally been the primary carers. KH made a great comment way back that talked about ‘changing the paradigm”.  When we are prepared to see child-rearing and domestic work (not to mention contraception and pregnancy)  as responsibilities that belong equally to men and women, we will go a long way to ending the assumption that women automatically make better parents or that anything to do with children is a woman’s responsibility.

    • Ray says:

      12:07pm | 22/05/11

      FFS Kaz, now you are connecting housework to child abuse or infanticide.

      Women are plain stupid. How can you possibly come to that analogy. Does that mean if a bloke does do the housework he won’t kill his kids, and that if a woman doesn’t do the housework she’ll kill her kids.

      That is precisely why I am saying the deaths of children within or without of relationships is wider than the Family Law Act which I repeat , is the haven for women to inflict misery on their male partner.

      We will never make progress while women want to include the child deaths in their ‘equality’ (that’s a laugh) paranoia.

      Selfish bastards.

    • Kaz says:

      10:59am | 22/05/11

      Just read Ray’s last comment too - jeeeeeez!
       
      “As I said KAZ peopl such as you are the problem. You also no doubt wish to deny that to remove a child from its father, unless in extranious circumstances where child safety is an issue, may have devastating effect oin a father that equates to PND.”

      Obviously I’m being irrational and attempting to muddy the waters with my inferior female logic here but I don’t believe I made any comment to that nature at all, Ray. That’s quite an assumption you made there!

      I had no idea that people like me were the problem, thanks for pointing that out.

    • j says:

      12:21pm | 22/05/11

      the whole system is against fathers.the fathers should just walk away dont bother standing up for your rights as we dont have any.the feminest’s hold all the cards & the law.The fathers are just wasting there time & money.Move on & enjoy life & find a woman who doesnt have these stupid feminest extremists views.the feminest’s deserve to be lonely as they are.All males need to wake up to there games & have nothing to do with them.Most feminest’s are lonely but very few will admit it & they wonder why.Males are waking up to them as most dating sites are full of woman as males are staying away & becoming picky to avoid these woman.The womans movement has gone too far with classing all us males as the same.Maybe the time is coming for all males to do the same to woman,ha ha i dare say it that will start them off.i am a christian through & true but you can see why muslims say they will take over the world(i appose this as a christian) as that probally is one of the only ways to stop this crap directed at men.The more feminests push the more they open the door for this to happen.

    • sammy says:

      02:32pm | 22/05/11

      I never ever had kids because i could see all this coming in the 1980s. At 48 years old now i am happy with my decision. The most evil place on earth is the family law courts. The biggest devils are the politicians that put it there and the feminists that promoted all this crap. Some how these blind mullets cant do any thing about what they have created. We can all see government is biased against men that why i divorced years ago. Needless to say my ex met some one else and had a daughter and six months later left him. Poor Bastard he is now paying maintain to 2 ex wife’s with 2 kids to him. That was years ago.
      As for me i enjoy my hobbies a clean batch pad with a big screen tv and all that other bloke y stuff. Blokes i say to you don’t fall for that ball an chain bullshit. Do the maths and head of to Thailand every now and then. Oh by the way i am just getting my first gray hair. I better pluck it now.

    • Roger says:

      09:49pm | 22/05/11

      lol indeed - the right choice. The best advice I can give men about to enter the family courts is to just walk away. Pay your CSA money and walk away. You’re actually more likely to see the kids later and in a better mind set as the woman just wants to drag the guy thru the courts and punish, punish and punish, even though she is likely to have brought it on (and as 70% of divorces are initiated by women). Best to walk away and start again. But not the same path, of course!

      Of course, you’ve seen the best option and got out of the marriage before kids. You’re the biggest winner on this blog. And remember the biggest incidence of infanctide is the natural mother, followed by the new boyfirend. And that goes for the abuse as well http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm08/figure3_6.htm

      Thailand never looked so better!

    • Outraged says:

      06:54pm | 23/05/11

      Amen!

      It’s funny how less and less men are getting married, and all the women are scratching their heads and writing articles in Cosmo and to AskBossy like: “Why won’t he commit to me”?

      It’s because of sh!t like this, ladies! Why buy the cow, when you get the milk for free?

    • trish says:

      11:17pm | 22/05/11

      people don’t have to live together when they are unhappy. Those things that make people unhappy range from physical abuse to carry the household load by yourself, to being separated from friends and family, to being made to beg for money. There are so many things and sometimes people are not in love anymore. Divorce and custody is not pleasant, and very expensive but they are different issues. Some work needs to be done on the fees charged by the legal system. Violence is a deal breaker in a marriage and if you are the perpetrator and the woman and children remove you from their lives you then bitching about what happens next is behaving like a spoilt child.

    • Milo says:

      02:44am | 23/05/11

      I agree with the violence Trish but then there is also the issue of vexatious domestic violence orders that women are encouraged to take out, even though there is not the slightest shred of evidence. If the husband tried to do the same it would be met with a jaundiced look and a smirk.  Also assuming that it is the husband always paying the maintenance/child support. One big change favouring Females/the wife; remember all those creepy private detectives once involved in Divorce cases. If the wife produced a photo of the husband in bed with the secretary, well case over. However if the husband could produce a photo of the wife having a horizontal folk dancing lesson with the stud/boyfriend, well all bets were off. Now all that any physical evidence of who was unfaithful or broke up the marriage is considered irrelevant,  It can quite often be the case where the ex-husband has to pay not only child support but continue house payments, so he can see the kids. Meanwhile the ex is still shacked-up with the boyfriend and the bloke can only afford to live in a caravan. You would be pissed as well.

    • violence is a deal breaker says:

      02:19pm | 23/05/11

      totally agree Trish. I never asked for a AVO. I just went to see a magistrate because a friend told me that a magistrate could order counseling and if I waited any longer we wouldn’t have any furniture or crockery left. Yes, he enjoyed his rages much.

      The magistrate ‘insisted’ despite my protests on a AVO. I’ve never been so scared in my life knowing some cops would be knocking on the door. You don’t want to know .. needless to say I withdrew the AVO.

      There’s always two sides to a story but no women or children should ever have to live through hell like that for years and years and years because there is no fail safe system.

      And trust me, for some of us there is no fail safe system. Not unless someone knows how to take care of guys who will literally pursue till the ends of the earth.

    • Steve says:

      06:10am | 23/05/11

      Another sob story here about the unfairness of the family law in Australia. My ex partner and I split (my decision), then a month later she realized she was pregnant. Under threats of her moving away and taking my child with her I was virtually extorted for over $30k before he was even born. I also voluntarily paid all medical expenses and set her up with the best baby nursery money could buy and paid her rent. I went with her to scans and doctors appointments and was as compassionate and caring as possible - even though I didn’t want to be with her I was determined to help her because she was my kid’s mum.

      Then she decides she likes women and shacks up with an older, harpy of a lawyer lesbian who tries to claim my son as her own. My ex admits she’s only with this woman as it is convenient, and there are no strong feelings there.

      We do a deal where I pay her 3 times what the CSA recommends so she will stay in the same city. She moves anyway, over an hour away ... but expects me to pay the same amount. I say okay, as long as I can still spend time with my boy and as soon as she stops breast feeding I get significant time with him instead of a once a week supervised visit. Then she starts canceling my weekly visits… So I go back to paying what the CSA recommends as she has breached every agreement ever made. (Don’t get me started about how difficult the CSA is to deal with either)

      Next the lesbian lawyer convinces her to ‘pretend’ to move interstate as a ploy to keep me away and make it difficult for me to keep them close via the family court. I try to resolve things through mediation - over the phone as she lies and says she is scared for her safety during a in-person mediation session. Bear in mind I have never so much as raised my voice to this woman. The worst thing I have ever said is that I was ‘disappointed’ in her behavior via text. (which was met with a barrage of abuse and threats)

      Mediation is a disaster. She lies, is unreasonable, ignores all pleas for common sense or research that shows what is actually best for our child. We come out with a parenting plan that grants me virtually nothing in terms of access, but an agreement to re-visit it in 6 months. At that time I was under the assumption she was actually moving interstate. My only choice at this stage was to agree to her plans or spend $100k in court and destroy the relationship forever.

      Then I realize they did not even move… They still lived close by. And they ignore virtually everything agreed to in the plan. So I go back to my lawyers and they say it won’t really matter to the court that they have willfully lied and tried to circumvent the system and keep me away from my child. I will still have to spend up to $100k, with little chance of success. I will most likely get only every 2nd weekend with my son, and even that will be dependent on an ‘independent review’ where some court appointed idiot will decide what is best for the rest of his life after spending a few hours with each of us. My lawyers also warned me that they will lie and accuse me of every bad thing they can think up from drug use to violence and sexual abuse - and I will just have to sit there and take it with little opportunity for recourse, and they will not be penalized for doing this.

      Even though I have genuine concerns about my child’s well-being and him being raised by a pair of ethically bankrupt pseudo lesbians in a fake relationship - if I was to take him and make sure he is safe, I would be the person charged with the crime of kidnapping. His own father is not allowed to rescue him.

      I have done everything right. I have been generous, understanding and all I have ever expected is the chance to be my son’s dad - he deserves to have a father that loves him and is there for him. But the Family Law system seems to do everything in it’s power to make that difficult. How is that what is best for our country’s kids?

      I don’t condone any sort of violence whatsoever, but I have experienced first hand the kind of frustration that could drive a weaker person to think it is their only option. If you don’t have $100k to waste on lawyers fees, what are your options? After you spend the money and get screwed by the system, what are your options? Walking away and abandoning your child is almost encouraged! Except financially of course…. No matter what the mother does, you still have to pay… And she doesn’t have to justify where the money goes.

      Dad’s should have to be proven to be unfit, otherwise they get at least 3/7 nights custody by default. Why is the onus of proof and expense put on fathers? Why are we considered less capable as parents by default?

      And the government doesn’t care. I wrote to my local member asking for his opinion on the situation and what he could to to campaign for Father’s rights and did not even get a response.

      It simply isn’t fair.

    • John Findlay says:

      08:07am | 23/05/11

      I’ll bet your sick to death of hearing “but you must have done something to cause her to act this way” I have the same issues with different circumstances times 4 kids ! At least your son isnt old enough to be taught to hate you. Thats your only blessing.

    • Perthgirl says:

      02:23pm | 23/05/11

      I’m the product of a broken home, my parents divorced when I was quite young. My Mum and Dad were selfless to the last - in my entire childhood, I never saw them fight and I never ever heard a cross word spoken (although there were arguments and cross words, as I found out later!). My Mum was awarded child support, my father never paid, she never pursued it in the courts and dragged the 3 of us along with her. She paid for our visits whenever Dad could see us when he couldn’t afford to (interstate, no less) and encouraged phone calls, letters, visits and what have you.

      To all of you parents out there fighting over the kids - your children *WILL GROW UP TO RESENT YOU* and might even hate you when they are adults, when they realise *YOU* were the one who stood in the way of them having a good relationship with their mother/father. They might be children now, but one day they will be adults - and if you stood in the way of their relationship with their parent or even your extended in-law family (their grandparents on his/her side), *YOU* will suffer one day for it in return. I am thankful every day that my relationship with my father was not influenced in any negative way whatsoever by my Mum. That is one of the most selfless acts she has done in her life, and I love her even more every day for it. What a strong, completely selfless woman!

    • John Findlay says:

      06:27am | 24/05/11

      Your mother is a REAL mum, unlike so many others out there.

    • Dana says:

      11:04am | 24/05/11

      My partner’s ex wife is bitter that he left.  Is bitter that he is now with me.  Is bitter because she had to go back to work when both kids went to school.  So this bitterness is leeched onto the children.  If they want to stay more, the answer is NO.  I am referred to as “The Bitch” in front of them.  She abuses him in front of the kids and tells him constantly what a shit Dad he is.  Her family has whispered stuff in their ears about him being violent - HE IS NOT.  One doesn’t want to see him at all and the other sometimes doesn’t come.

      No matter what the court rules or whatever laws are in place it will not stop bitter women, or men, from filling their kids’ heads with lies about the other parent.  My partner’s solicitor said it is very hard to prove and expensive.  So you go through court and after two years of one partner making derogatory remarks about the other the kids don’t want to come anyway, and you are broke.  Do you then take the kids kicking and screaming?  Until women and some men can put their personal feelings aside and focus purely on the children nothing will change. 

      Child support is worked out to the dollar yet you have to spend months in mediation negotiating time with children and even then it is not sorted.  My partner can’t see his kids Christmas Eve or Christmas Day.  This sort of thing should be a given - alternating Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, birthdays, Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Easter but it is not.  The system only works for parents who can put their personal stuff to one side but for the ones that can’t it is a joke. 

      There is no excuse for harming children but when someone’s back is to the wall I can understand suicide, I can understand a parent packing their car and never coming back and I can understand parents who just give up.

      My ex and I were able to put our feelings aside in an extremely nasty separation and focus on our child who is happy and confident.  I just wish more people could be the same.

    • Ausfire says:

      11:25am | 24/05/11

      To all those with no experience in the Australian Family Law system - no need to raise your hand because all those that have gone through it know who you are. You make uniformed and inexperienced statements.

      To those that think they can Google the “experience” ... you really have no idea. Personally, I hope you stay that way. I wouldn’t wish the current family law system on anyone - it only destroys.

      To the person that says “It’s the only system we have and it’s better than nothing” ... you don’t know how wrong you are. I’ll let the children of the family law system enlighten you. In this case, nothing is far better than something.

      The ONLY ones that KNOW how people feel in this, are the ones that have gone through this horror. They are the ONLY ones that understand the thoughts, the emotion, the despair, the helplessness ... the bias.

      To all those (radical) feminists - I hope you are proud of being part of a system that almost always eventually causes harm to the children. A system that harms far more than it “protects”. Personally, I can’t understand how most with their selfishness can live with themselves knowing the psychological harm they have caused the children.

      I have been an attendee at DIDSS meetings and involved at a regional level. The saddest part is, all the stories above are almost exactly the same as you hear week in, week out. I’ve known people that just can’t take it any more and end their life - I was nearly one of those.

      While I would never contemplate harming my children, I have seen the harm done to my children by a vindictive parent, the damage caused by the family law system, the so called “professionals” that push their own personal agenda, and the magistrates that while follow the intent of the law, and influence their decisions with personal bias.

      I remember my first day in court where the magistrate told me - “You have no idea”. He was right. I had no idea of the lies that would be told or the bias that existed, or the harm that the other parent and the system would inflict on my children - all of whom now suffer mental illness in some form, because the magistrate excluded me from my children’s lives because of lies, unprofessionalism, and bias. I have seen the same in other children as well who have had a caring father excluded from their life.

    • Davido says:

      12:18pm | 24/05/11

      I have seen both sides of a split behave very badly.

      Unfortunately, there is only one sex rewarded for behaving badly in a divorce.

    • Jules says:

      02:49pm | 24/05/11

      My partner of 6 years went through the family courts to gain access to his 2 children (his wife left him 8 years ago when his drinking/drug use got out of hand).  Her first pregnancy with him was accidental (in so far as having unprotected sex can be “accidental”) but he stayed with her, thinking he was doing the right thing, despite not being ready for fatherhood (again, should have thought about that before having unprotected sex!).  In short, not the best way to begin parenthood, but there you go. She developed severe post-natal depression after the first child and he tried to cope with working and doing as much around the house as possible.  They had another child. He started drinking more and using amphetamines to help him cope with the increasing demands on his time.  Neither of them were much help to each other and the relationship suffered.  His drinking and drug taking escalated, his behaviour became erratic and she finally left him. No violence was committed or even alleged.  She was reluctant to grant him access initially (due to her concerns about his behaviour and substance abuse) and he refused to take any responsibility for it, claiming that she had a vendetta against him. He is obviously still angry about the fact that she left him when he was trying to do his best to support the family.  He is now earning great money and pays generous child support - and constantly waves that in her face, as evidence that she shouldn’t have left him.  She is obviously still angry about the amount of money he spent on booze and drugs when they were together so constantly asks him for money, over and above the generous child support he already pays.  He is healthy now and has a good relationship with his kids (mostly) but still feels very hard done by and refuses to acknowledge any problem on his part. He is immature and she is spoilt.  So lawyers had to get involved. I’ve been through the entire process with him and I have to say, none of the lawyers, magistrates, advisors have been evil or biased- they have simply been trying to deal fairly with 2 people who are completely unable to solve their own problems.  I suspect many situations are like this - there are no clear baddies or goodies.  Frankly, I think they both deserve a slap for doing this to their children - it’ll be a miracle if the kids don’t grow up and tell BOTH of them where to go.

    • Dad for ever says:

      02:41am | 27/05/11

      I’m in the family law court system at the moment and I agree with the comment that unless you have been through it please don’t judge us dads. Having your child taken away from you is not natural, it hurts and the pain is real and day after day you have to pick your self up and get through another day without knowing what your own flesh and blood are doing or even where they live, it is the hardest thing I have ever had to do.

      I usually describe the experience of going through the family law court as something like being bound to a cross with tight ropes bound around your body so you can barely move and you are then beaten and kicked and spat on (which is the false accusations of abuse and all the lies, projection, distortion campaigns and lawyers who have the ability to make Buddha look like an abusive psychological bully who needs anger management). So there you are, bound in the system, being beaten and abused and now for the tricky part, the part that I find most paradoxical, you do nothing but take the beating. For if you flinch, show any sort of resentment or anger about not being able to see your kids, or you’re not actively trying to improve the communication with your ex wife after she just belted you again in your already brutally abused nads, then that’s it, you lose. Any small argument or disagreement will be blown out of proportion and you will be made out to be the aggressive male and you now get less time with your kids and for that pleasure we will reward you by making you pay more money. Yay! Another win for feminism.

      There are strategies for surviving, research how to deal with high conflict personalities. It has taken me a while to gain focus, but the most important thing is to have self preservation, to protect yourself. If you are good you will be good for your kids. It is not about revenge, it is not about who is right or wrong, it is about the children and not exposing them to conflict or parental alienation syndrome.

      There is a lot of good information on borderline personality disorder sites that help men, and women, deal with abusive people. The trick is to not engage with the other side, minimise contact to the bare essentials. As soon as you find yourself explaining or justifying yourself, you have lost and you are fueling her (or his) anger and hate. When they throw shit, which they will, put your emotional rain jacket on and only respond to the bare minimum about the kids. Don’t respond to their crap, this is so hard I know, I am driven to justify myself, to use logic, to try reasoning but these are the very traits that i believe got me into this situation in the first place, and not once have they worked. I didn’t have firm boundaries in place within the relationship and I have paid the consequence. I learnt a lot about myself through my divorce and recognised my part in it but now I have done my growth and I am much stronger and more focussed these days.

      Dad’s groups and therapy help. Don’t bottle your shit up, you got to walk your grief, live it, live the pain and look within and struggle forward, do your growth now otherwise you will stay angry and bitter and pro long the conflict. I’m definitely out of the fog now (still in court though) and though I am not totally numb to the beatings I get whilst bound to my cross of the court, I know how to navigate through the pain now days. But let me tell you that when you are in the depths of that fog, that crazyness that is living without your children and being told you can’t see them and there is nothing you can do but follow due process and by the way we know the mother is a better parent than you because you are a man so suck it up, hand over your pay check and shut up and let us kick you in the nads, it is pure and utter hell and anyone in that situation has my deepest sympathy and I wish you well. Know that this struggle will make you strong.

      Please realise that if women want their men to help out with the home duties, which more and more men are doing willingly, and men are bonding and connecting with their children on a deeper level more so than probably any other point throughout history, then don’t be surprised as to why men react to the inequity of custody decisions regarding their children.

      Our Family Law Court is broken, it discriminates against men and we need things to change. The facts are that more women kill their children, more women are abusive towards their children, more men kill themselves over custody issues, fatherless children are menaces to society and are generally messed up and yes I know that men are abusers as well, but that doesn’t make it right to discriminate against them as is currently the situation.

    • John Findlay says:

      02:36pm | 30/05/11

      Said to perfection, this is what I and many others are going through. It’s the elephant in the room that is ignored until it steps on your toes.

      Support Mick Fox, KIDS FIRST !

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter