Investigative journalist or lobbyist? The shared care debate in Australia
Posted by Ash Patil on November 17th, 2009 | Category: Adele Horin Caroline Overington Exploitation of Family Law
Most people on the street would be quite familiar by now with an avalanche of newspaper articles over the past year condemning Australia's shared care laws and suggesting that they put Australia's children at risk of abuse.
These articles have been so effective that most people actually believe that the current research supports this suggestion.
Articles such as " Courts continue to grant access to violent parents ", " Shared-parenting is 'gobbledegook' ", "'Flaws' in John Howard's parenting law" & " Replace shared care with Canada model " have been so one-sided and misleading in their depiction of these laws, that there is a clear expectation in the community that the 2006 shared parental responsibility laws will as a matter of certainty be repealed by the Rudd government.
This avalanche of articles were primarily the work of two journalists, Caroline Overington from the Australian and Adele Horin from Fairfax, who seem to have closely aligned their message with that of Barbara Biggs, a toxic extremist who promotes the idea that men on the whole are sexual predators and inherently violent, and cannot be trusted in the care of their children.
In response to these articles, I have often been asked by members of Fathers4Equality why I have not made important research available to the likes of Caroline and Adele, in order for them to provide more balanced and informative reporting on this very important issue.
And there is an overwhelming amount of credible research to debunk these stereotypes of men and shared parenting promoted by those who have questionable motives in replacing Australia's shared care laws.
For example, recent research from the WA Department of Child Protection (amongst others) has shown that up to 80% of all child abuse occurs in single mother households, research from the Australian Institute of Criminology (amongst others) has shown that family violence is instigated equally by both men and women, a report from Childline in the UK has reported the skyrocketing of allegations by children against women for sexual abuse, and an article in the Wall Street Journal has reported on a German study highlighting the neurological damage caused to children who are raised without the ongoing presence of a father.
Further articles have highlighted the recent national poll in Canada showing 80% support for the replacement of their sole-custody family law model with shared care family laws, or the unprecedented outburst by UK Lord Justice Ward who spoke out against the sole-custody UK family laws by saying that the courts were powerless to help decent fathers to see their children if vengeful mothers stood in the way.
When one was to view all the research in this area on the whole, the conclusion is unmistakable. That there is a foundation of research and broad recognition within the community that sole custody laws are bad for children, and that shared care on the whole is in the best interests of children. In fact, the natural transparency afforded by shared care provides the best safeguards against the risk of child abuse or neglect.
Now, truth be told, I have corresponded with the likes of Caroline and Adele quite extensively in this past year.
So one would assume that given our history, that both Caroline and Adele would be open to reading and/or reporting on vital information on Child abuse and Shared parenting passed on to them by Fathers4Equality.
Given that Caroline and Adele have devoted significant time and effort in writing article after article suggesting that children's welfare is at stake if they have shared care arrangements with their fathers, then as any credible investigative journalist would do, they would cross-reference their conclusions with the latest research and information on these claims.
Correct?
Well, No, not so.
Fathers4Equality have gone out of our way to inform both Caroline and Adele on very important research that critically undermines the premise that shared care is bad for children. At the very least it provides a strong counter-argument to the repeated mantra from these two.
So have they reported on it?
Well, based on the below return receipts from emails sent to both Caroline and Adele on this very important research, not only haven't they reported on it, but they have also refused to even read it. They simply deleted it from their inbox without reading it.
Let me repeat that. They have DELETED, without reading, emails purporting to contain key information on the very topics they have devoted so much time on. And then they proceeded to write further articles on this topic, and done so in selective ignorance of the facts.
Investigative journalism? I think not! Not convinced? Just look at the emails below and ask yourself why they were deleted without being read.
Comments (45)
Who gives a rats about the family law courts and CSA and any demoralizing discriminative non equal rights department. Who cares about the abuse of children. You 2 just had an argument over crap. The whole point is there are good men and good women. I know my mother wasn't a good mother and left me psychologically scared. She abandoned me, left me home alone, i was tortured abused but noone cares about that do they?
I will sue the family law courts and all involved for this. It went against my human right, my fathers rights and my childhood rights. It definately wasn't in the best interests of the child.
The whole point of this is, there are good dads and good mums. Just because a family breaks down, there is no need to take it out on the child who is owed by both parents to each other to learn, grow and be nurtured by both.
I too own a small business and yes i too can use many tax benefits to make my taxable income less. That didn't stop me though paying more to my ex then the CSA percentage and asking if she needed clothes or anything for the girls whenever she needed.
The idea of lowering income is solely for business purposes. Then before my business went good, i live on the streets in my van only showering every couple days living down back alleys and dead end streets only eating once per day but that didn't stop child support from still wanting money from me. I was destitute. Still i emerged and fought threw but now after going bankrupt i give up. She has no right tokeep my children from me. I never did anything more then her to them. By that i mean our breakup hurt them. Both our faults. I worked with young children so labeling me as a child abuser is slanderous. I love my girls and it isn't about the f**ing money. It never has been. Its about my life with my girls being stolen from me by government by my ex when noone has that right. I wanted to have children. It is my right to be with them whenever i so please. They came from inside me too. Far as i am concerned everyone on this planet can stay out of my business.
I think people who consistantly call the other sex bad are the bad ones themselves. I could sit here and go on about things my ex did to me but the point is out of all my girls need her just as much as me. I could tell you how she put a pillow over one of there heads but only her and i know the whole situation. Only her and i can decide. Just because one person was abused, doesn't mean the other 99% or 80% or who cares percent hurts children or wives or husbands or whatever.
This crap just goes back and forth while the real creeps in this, the government and law departments reak all the benefits and billions of dollars. Not only that my whole life is gone from them a****holes. Right from a child i had no relationship with my dad. My mother abused me and then abandoned me never to be seen again. Now i don't see my children. I refuse to pay now. Even if i could pay i can't because i have no money.
I am sick of all the free handouts that make it easy for single parents then they scream poor but have no idea about the other side where we pay you child support then pay your tax leaving us with nothing.
See, NO, CAN YOU SEE? Everything is about money. Everyone is suffering from all of this while the real culprits get away with it. Those culprits have everyone brainwashed to think they are better then us and above us all. They make there own laws when really all laws are illegal because they go against every human right.
Who dare tell me i can not see my own children not you not my ex not a judge not a polititian. Noone. Oh and you people wonder why good people get angry and go crazy. From all the torment i have had i am turning from a great guy to someone who does not care. I know by myself i will not defeat those arrogant pricks. That leaves me no choice but suicide.
I can tell you going to court giving away money is not in the best interests of anyones child. Everyone takes it upon themselves to get into everyone else business and to try influence there opinions when that just doesn't suit everyone.
There is only one fair law and that is equality just like the bible states we are all born equal under gods law not some superficial know it all. See i was never born equal and neither were any of you. I was born into a society who think they have the right to rule over me. Just like you we have to do thisd we have to do that we can't do this and might i add are there so many contradictions. Just like, i can not call and Aboriginal a black man or i will be sued for racism when everyone knows that is abosolute crap. Then on prime time TV an Aboriginal man says the words white man. Now is that an equal right being taken away or what? This whole thing is all government spurred to gain money and there is no other reason for it. You can tell by the way crime is way out of control. The way children turn to people do bad things then turn around and say you can't do a thing to me. It is ridiculous.
You tell me how can an 80 year old woman sue Mc Donalds for spilling coffee on herself because they didn't label it caution hot. What a joke, if she never knew coffee was hot within her 80 years and was clmsy enough to spill it on herself the i am a troll on a bridge.
Speaking of caution, in turn you can warn people that your dog is dangerous but then be sued if it bites when someone was on its territory because you knew it was dangerous. The whole world is a joke and i don't want to be on this planet anymore. This place is hell in disguise. We are born into hell and everyone preaches love but you aren't allowed to love.
I tell you, even if a man or a woman hit one another, neither have the right to take away the children from the other. Everytime i here a woman cry out about things, it all comes down to child support payments. Whebn in reality you are no longer a part of the other person. You only want the children to get those benefits, if you cry about child support. To clarify, i know that i could afford to give my ex more at one stage so i gave her more on my own accord. I also bought clothes and paid for fuel and travelled to her door to help her out because the last thing i wanted was her to be destitute while my girls were with her. I wish the same could be said for her though.
I told another woman about this and her response was oh shes just getting back at you, women are like that. Well that isn't good enough. Using and abusing children like that at your peril. Who the hell do you think you are.
I say every man should be taught not to have anymore children. Its over. No more. No more planting seeds into viscious women who have control over government policies. Who are thought to be the victims when in essence the only victims are the children. Until everything is equal and kept equal then no child should be born. My lazy arse mum never worked a day in her life and when last year i found her and tried to ask about my childhood, she still screams poor and thinks she should just be given money for nothing. She had so much talent but wasted it all. I don't talk to her now becausee she said she didn't want to be a mum and didn't care what happened to me as a child so i told her where to go.
I hate the whole world it is a mess.
David, thanks for direction to the DiD site - I have actually been on there and read many of the topics and posts, though I have never posted myself. You are right too in saying there are a few wackos and unfortunately, they seem to be very prolific, which is maybe what gives the impression that many separated men are as unpleasant as possible about their ex's. There are some pretty radical woman hating sites out there too and by the same token, there are some very good ones run by women that are not radical feminists and who don't shoot men down in flames.
I have even found two sites run under the auspices of "father's rights" who "coach" men how to use PAS, bullying and intimidation to get them what they want. If this is not using the children and abusing women, then only a punch in the face could be clearer. Both of those sites have apparently been investigated and are on a "watch list".
I am actually close friends with a number of men who are, you might say, on the other side of the fence. What I have noticed is that of those I know personally, the greatest majority are extremely reasonable and very cognisant of the problems that exist in the current model of care being touted. They are cautious about separating siblings for extended periods even when age differences might mean a significant difference in time spent, they understand the problems that are associated with very young children and most think what my ex is proposing is outrageous, without having first even heard my own opinion. A few have got past the horror of their own situations and settled somewhat happily into new routines, at least one I know has felt driven away from his kids almost completely because his ex is withholding them and he can't afford to go to court and that is awful and completely wrong. The kids will eventually grow up to hate their mother for it and will eventually reconcile with dad, but its poor consolation I know, because it doesn't do anything for him or them in the intervening years.
What I want to know is - why the hell did I have to marry the selfish, ignorant, abusive narcissist, instead of one of the reasonable ones????
I know, I only have myself to blame there, but I can assure you for someone like me (and for many women), it is very hard to admit that I endured every form of abuse except physical for the entire marriage. In some terrible way, I wish he HAD hit me - because then it would be a whole lot clearer in the eyes of the law and perhaps I might have got out of there sooner, before there was a child to be damaged in the process.
Split. Thank you for your first paragraph, if you are sincere then we have much in common.
As you say all of our experiences are different and unfortunately that is what is polarising debate on this issue.I'm sorry that you think my suggestion regarding your posting on a feminist as "petty" it was designed to show you the difference between the freedom you have been shown here to post your views, and the censorship which is rife on the radical feminist sites. I have visited a number of these sites and have read a number of horrific stories of women who have been terrorised by violent men, and my heart goes out to them. I have also seen the hatred which seems to be directed at all men, regardless of who they are. I have read all their stories, but for every one i read, i read just the same heart rending stories from fathers on our sites. As i have visited many of the feminist sites and have heard their stories and indeed am marrying next year a woman who is the victim of an abusive [not violent] marriage and who is completely cognisant that there are many bad men out there. I would ask you to visit[ in the interests of fair play]The "dads in distress site". This is not a mens activist site. It is a site to support men/fathers who have been driven to depression and even worse "suicide" because of their love of their children. Have a browse through some of the "my story" section and see the stories there. Every thing from the dad who came home one day from work and found his house cleaned out and his wife and children gone interstate to be with someone she has never met, to the father who spent months hammering on the door of the police and DOCS saying that his child was in danger and then because nobody listened eventually got custody of his child in the form of a pile of ashes in a box. Go on have a look. Then have a look particularly in recent archives at the number of women, mothers and grand mothers of children they are not allowed to see. Mothers who have seen their sons slide into depression and even worse because of how they have been treated by the family court.In particular new partners of fathers who are often unable to put enough food on the table because of the often rapacious practices of the CSA which only seems to care about the fathers first and not his second family, and not at all how the money is spent.. Women who are seeing their partner, [who they have found is NOT the ogre his ex has painted him as] ripped apart because of a nasty ex who is denying him the chance to bond with his child purely out of vindictiveness. Go on have a good look, this is the darker side of what is happening in our courts.Go on this site as yourself, put your own point of view,if you are not abusive you will not find your posts deleted as i found mine were on the feminists site. There is a private message facility there where you can send messages securely. You may contact me on there if you wish. All i ask is that you have a good look around the site get past the few wacko's [ there arn't many], and see the other side . So much to say but i have to go now. Hope we can work together for what is GENUINELY in the best interests of our children. Back soon.
David, I totally agree with you about the situation regarding abuse - as I said, the gender of the parent abuser doesn't matter, the system should not allow abused children to remain with their abuser. Put into more plain language - if the abuser is the mother and the father is willing and able to care for the children, then yes, by all means, he should be first in line for custody. I have never felt any differently from that.
All of our experiences are different. You are dead right that it is generally the magistrate's interpretation of the law that leads to absolutely untenable orders, however, how do you stop that from happening and how do you stop small children being destroyed in the process? I also agree that the old laws were broken, but why does the pendulum always have to swing so far when making new laws? The new laws were clearly made with older children in mind. The legislation was hurried and this is evidenced by the poor wording, the vague wording and the positively crazy orders that are being made.
You say your ex had plenty of cash - well, I now live on Centrelink (not by choice) and I can assure you that my pension ($580 per fortnight), plus Family Tax Benefit ($300 per fortnight) and the child support I receive ($80 per fortnight because he is self employed and can make so much of his income disappear) does not even cover my rent, much less food, clothes, medication etc. In fact, there isn't a rental within about 50km that I could afford to pay for and still pay the bills and yet he has the ability to prevent me from moving to somewhere I CAN afford. Meanwhile, my ex is spending up big on renovations, new furniture, a massive plasma TV and interstate holidays and at the same time, crying poor. He won't buy our kid any clothes, won't contribute to child care fees, medical costs, won't buy toys.
David, just like you, what makes me so angry is that absolutely none of that will matter to a FM or judge.
And for the record, I wasn't talking about your being a role model for your child, what I meant was being a role model for other men, other fathers.
I also worry that if the laws were changed ostensibly so that "boys wouldn't grow up without their fathers", what about the bitterness and hatred many separated men have for their ex's and how that will translate when their sons grow up disrespecting women?
I stated quite plainly for all to see that i did not believe all women were like the first few posters on here. I also stated quite plainly that i did not believe in automatic shared care. In view of this how can you possibly say that i am labelling ALL women that way, you are being ridiculous.I took my daughter from being in a class for slow children to now doing a psychology degree, just how good a role model does a man have to be, or perhaps you would have preferred her to look at her mother as being a role model and turn out the same abusive and neglecting person SHE was. Yes the current shared care laws [ or at least the FC judges interpretation of them ] are not always in the best interests of the children, but neither did the old laws, in fact they were instrumental in almost destroying my own daughters life, and you will have a hard job convincing HER otherwise. As regards looking at socio economic factors, the ex had far more disposable income than i did. Pension and family tax benefit,subsidised housing [i had a big mortgage to pay]cheap utilities [i had to pay full price]full child support [of course she only had to pay me the princly sum of $5 p/w once i got custody] and free legal aid [i had to pay all mine myself]. Yet despite all this my 5/6/7 yo daughter was still made to go hungry and was still left alone often all night for 6/7 nights a week while her mother seemed to have plenty of money to spend on her BF's and down the pub, while i was lucky to be able to go out once a fortnight, and i was working, at least part time. No, more women abusing their children is not an argument for shared care, it is an argument for more men to be given custody in cases of abuse and neglect by the mother, you people certainly seem to think that fathers who abuse their children should not have care of them so why doesn't that also apply to mothers who do the same.
No, I did not mis represent myself on a feminist site, because I don't actually feel the need to enter into such petty behaviour. I can not believe the playground level of attitude I am experiencing here. Didn't your mothers (or your fathers) ever tell you to rise above it??? So you find some women's groups to be "feminazis", but that doesn't stop you from labelling all women that way. If you want the wider population to think you're good guys, then start acting like it!! Instead of spending all your energy on denigrating women, try spending some of it on being good role models and then we might have to start believing you.
Scott, I do not believe that all men are incapable of caring for children under 5. You clearly either have a problem with reading, or you prefer to use your own interpretations of my words. However, I do assert that very few men in intact families actually do much of the caring. Those fathers who do more than 30% of actual caring for children under 5 would be a minority in Australia.
What I am trying in all of this to say is that the words "meaningful", "shared" and "equal" are not substitutes for each other.
Despite my ex's almost complete lack of involvement in our child's life for the first two years, they actually have a very good relationship - one that I would say is pretty normal. Our child loves him dearly, but the relationship developed despite his lack of involvement. Our child's love for him does not change the fact that I was the primary carer then and still am. I don't work, he does, so why should our toddler be forced into long day care or any care by a third party who isn't a parent just in order to satisfy his "rights"?
Of course, if a primary care giver is being obstructive about providing opportunities for the non resident parent to spend time with the kids, then that should definitely be addressed, preferably by the courts, as it shows again one parent trying to control the other's involvement, but I still fail to see why time spent needs to be equal.
In my case and yes, it is hard to be objective when an issue is so emotive, but my ex has already given plenty of indications he is financially motivated and the fact that he has rejected every single opportunity to spend time with our child other than a full day or over night would indicate very strongly to me that he simply wants to reduce his Child Support burden (with the added advantage of hurting me). And what will the courts say? Oh, what a great guy, he wants to spend equal time with his kid. Not, what a lowlife who's main objective in life seems to be to force his ex to live in poverty and continue his abuse of her despite their separation.
What is this obsession with equal time being the only way for a parent to have a relationship with their children? I argue this point to say that the ONLY children who are cared for equally by their parents in Australia are those who are the product of a separation, whether by agreement of the parents or forced into it by the courts. In very, very few intact families do both parents share parenting tasks equally, regardless of whether or not both parents are in paid employment.
The current statistics show that around 19% of children of separated couples are in equal or significant shared care in Australia. How this translates as a percentage of the actual broader population I don't know, but if we are to believe all the hype your are raising around the issue, are we in fact saying that children in intact families will be neurologically, psychologically or emotionally damaged because their parents do not share parenting equally? Perhaps DOCS or the lawmakers should be intervening in traditional type families where dad works and mum stays at home to care for the kids, as those kids are obviously going to be messed up as adults.
I didn't think so. I'm sorry but I don't believe the new laws are working in the child's best interest at all for young children. Regardless of which parent was the primary care giver while the family was intact, that should be the starting point for care at separation and if both parents AND the children want to move towards a more equal sharing of care when the children are old enough to be involved in the discussion, then it should be introduced slowly, not with the bang of a gavel.
I am also sick to death of the tripe that is dished out around making women out to be poor mothers in an effort to make men look the better parent. Once again, if you want to use that argument, look at the socio-economic factors involved. Every good researcher knows that numbers are irrelevant unless you are comparing like populations.
Saying that more women abuse children is NOT an argument for shared care. It is an argument for a better system of identification and justice for abusers, regardless of their gender.
RAGINVOLD.[QUOTE].The family law act gives only token regard to the needs,wishes and rights of children, they have no rights to seek or refuse contact and a meaningful relationship as the parents have. Nor have they the right to terminate arrangements when they feel threatened or suffer abuse, and those appointed to represent their views are often woefully inadequate and incompetent at doing so as they are similarly untrained and ill equipped in competently investigating such incidents. When domestic violence issues or previous incidents of child abuse are raised in court proceedings they are often therefore summarily dismissed or disregarded by the courts because there is so little knowledge and understanding amongst those administering the law, of the severe effects of violence and abuse on children, and the often lifelong emotionally traumatic effects of such abuse.
I agree entirely. In my own case the court just didn't care about the abuse and neglect inflicted on my daughter by her mother, despite a mountain of evidence submitted to the court and Families SA about this abuse and neglect and my own daughter telling the child psychologist much of what had been going on they STILL recommended that my daughter live with her mother for 3 years with the inevitable results.Eventually it was left to my daughter to vote with her feet one cold rainy night and SHAME them into doing something. Children should never be left in the care of toxic, dangerous,abusive and neglecting mothers [only replying to your assertion about toxic and dangerous fathers] who see the children solely as a means to get money and as a tool to get at their ex. Do you agree or are you only interested in mothers rights, which i suspect is the case.
Just as there is a register of sex offenders, violent men etc, so should there be a register of mothers who neglect and abuse their children, again, do you agree or are you only interested in mothers rights.Only a year or so ago we had a case here in south australia of around 15 children living in horrendous conditions with their mothers and new BF's, even kids in nappies playing out in the street at 2 or 3 o clock in the morning, these mothers were apparently well known in victoria for the abuse and neglect of their children and had moved to SA where they were not known.Being placed on such a register would have enabled the authorities to keep an eye to the welfare of their children. One of the fathers of 3 of the children came from victoria to SA and offered to take over the care of his own children but was refused, the authorities instead deciding to leave the children in the care of these abusing and neglecting mothers. Again i ask do you think he should have been given the opportunity to care for his children or are you only interested in mothers rights. Why were these children left in the care of mothers who were shown time and time again to be abusive and neglecting and a danger to their welfare and what about the rights of THESE children. Why is it that you take umbrage at fathers when THEY try to bring to light instances of child abuse,neglect and child murder but seem to think it's ok for the aforementioned journalists to villify fathers.You are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem as are fathers who actually ARE abusive.You people denigrate fathers groups who use the WA govt statistics on child abuse and neglect yet you seem quite happy to tout other gov't statistics on DV etc when it suits your purposes. Its called hypocrisy. Why arn't you joining with fathers groups to force other state governments to release their own figures on child abuse, or are you perhaps afraid that these figures will also show that significantly more children are abused neglected and killed by their mothers than their fathers.
Thank you Karl, John or Cynthia J, or whatever name you choose to post with next.
I am assuming you are one and the same given your posting fingerprint.
In any case it is clear that you are not familiar with the Family Law act 2006, nor any of the policies or positions of Fathers4Equality.
You are mis-representing what we stand for, and in the process you have made some very serious allegations.
I would advise you to please take the time to read the information on our website before making such sinister allegations and claims.
These are serious matters. If you want to engage in discussion then you should make an effort to brief yourself on the law and what it actually says, rather than making these bizarre statements that have no connection to how the law works in this country.
Ash Patil - could it be that your emails are being ignored by Caroline Overington and Adele Horin because you are constantly and rabidly abusive and trying to turn this into a gender issue by your constant arguments that mothers are just as guilty of abusing children as fathers and that fathers must have the right to contact and a meaningful relationship with their children after separation, no matter that some are toxic and dangerous to their children, when the major concern regarding the Family Law and its application in the Family Courts is that the law is framed solely as a statement of the rights of parents and children are treated by the law and the Courts merely as possessions, to be disposed of along with the other goods and chattels of the separating couple.
The vast majority of separating couples are able to make reasonable and responsible arrangements between them regarding their joint children but there are a minority who are notr prepared to be responsible and reasonable and whose only concern is to assert the rights given to them under the Family Law, whether that is in the best interests of the children, or not. The assumption therefore that `Shared Parenting is always in the best interests of every child is an entirely false premise.
Sadly it is this false premise which is advanced to Courts by advisers and lawyers which has directly led to children being placed with abusive parents and some have suffered death as a direct consequence.
The Family Law Act gives only token regard to the needs, wishes, and rights of children they have no rights to seek nor to refuse contact and a `meaningful relationship as the parents have, nor have they the right to terminate arrangements when they feel threatened or suffer abuse, and those appointed to represent their views are often woefully inadequate and incompetent at doing so as they are similarly untrained and ill-equipped in competently investigating such incidents. When domestic violence issues or previous incidents of child abuse are raised in Court Proceedings they are often therefore summarily dismissed or diregarded by the Courts because there is so little knowledge and understanding amongst those administering the law, of the severe effects of violence and abuse on children and the often lifelong emotionally traumatic effects of such abuse.
So may I suggest Ash Patel, that instead of constantly waving your tattered banner and issuing abusive slogans on Father's Rights, that you begin to show at least a little concern for those children who are suffering abuse and death as a consequence of the ill-conceived Family Law Act and the prejudiced and incompetent workings of the Family Courts. Perhaps then you may find that your emails are responded to. The first duty of any civilised country is to safeguard and protect its children sadly the law and the courts in this country have become collusive with the perpetrators of the abuse and inhumane treatment of children and of violating their human rights.
Split. Did you do as i suggested regarding posting on a feminist site. The shared parenting laws are very plain, and pretty fair, What is wrong is the way that the FC judges are interpreting and acting on them, which is the real reason why breastfeeding infants are being taken from their mothers to spend time with their fathers,and why children are being left in the care of abusing and neglecting mothers as my own daughter was. I do not believe in automatic shared care, to do so would make me a hypocrite as in the end, after i got custody, my daughters mother was only allowed supervised access once a fortnight, and if you knew the circumstances,how my daughter was abused and neglected by her mother and the terrible state she was in after i rescued her you would understand why. I do however believe that where a father or mother does not represent a danger to the welfare of the child then that child should have an opportunity to bond and spend time with both parents, in fact this is enshrined in the un charter regarding the rights of children to which australia is a signatory country.
JOHN. [QUOTE] I actually understand why a lot of women feel the way they do especially when their life is disrupted every second week or holidays just to satisfy a partner who left to go on to better things.[Quote] I believe that once a child is in the equation you are committed to raise that child with your partner until they grow up.
Only on monday a friend of mine came home from work to find his wife and children gone, even the oldest child is only 14yo. This is a working man who has stayed loyal to his wife and who has worked his entire married life to provide for his wife and children. It appears that while he has been at work his wife has been chatting to blokes on the internet and has now gone to QLD to be with one of them, what has HE done to deserve this and what about HIS rights to see his children.How do you equate this with what you said. Get real.
@ Split
You seem to strongly believe that men are incapable of looking after under school age children. That is sexist tripe. I agree with you on the breast feeding issue, but after that, there is nothing a mother can provide that a father cannot also. Your beliefs would prevent a father developing a meaningful relationship with the child until they are about 5 years old - how is that in the best interests of the child? It is more about maternal control of the child's life and excluding the father from meaningful involvement. Just because a father does some things differently does not mean that he is wrong. The converse also applies.
Your views are tainted by your own experience, as are mine. In my case my wife left the family home to be with her new girlfriend. We have 2 boys who were then aged 5 and 2. The wife and her friend wanted to limit me to an occasional overnighter with the older child and a bit of day contact with the youngest (who had finished breastfeeding BTW) so that it minimised the disruption to the "rainbow family" they were trying to establish.
There was no valid reason for their stance, I had looked after both boys on my own on a weekly basis while my wife was at work (I changed my shifts to be at home when she was at work) and on overnight work trips, and also for days on end while she was away doing "her things". It isnt that hard and I enjoyed it. The only reason was to reduce my influence in my boys lives whilst maximising the child support and centrelink payments.
Thankfully, $30000 later, a judge upheld my right to have a meaningful relationship with my children. I have them 5 consecutive nights a fortnight during term and 50/50 during school holidays. The boys have their routine of where they are living on what days and, because it is regular and has been part of their lives for as long as the littlest one can remember, and it works fine for them. They are settled, happy and loving little men.
The biggest advantage to me as a parent after separation is that I am now ALLOWED to parent my boys without being told how to do it or, or more specifically, how I was doing it wrong. Many mothers I know see only 2 ways to parent - their way and the wrong way. This drives their desire to minimise time with Dad "for the sake of the children". This is the attitude you are projecting in your posts.
Children need a father - not a male mother.
To mike and ash.
I am sorry to disapoint you but I am a man actually.
The only plant i see is in ones imagination.
I guess you figure that only women can think the way I do but there are actually men out there as well who feel the same way I do.
I actually understand why a lot of women feel the way they do especially when there lifes disrupted every second week or holidays just to satisfy a partner who left to go onto better things.
I bet they did not think .....hey if i really am thinking of the kids then maybe i should leave.
I believe that ones a child is in the equation you are commited to raise that child with your partner till they grow up.
If you are not committed to that then maybe you should not have had the kids in the first place.
The problem with today it is such a throw away society
and most people only think of themselves.
As for all the studies well so far i can see that all the so called elites who do these studies do not live in the real world.
If they were so great then why are our kids a mess ?
John:
i find it interesting you would need to explain you are a man. That is usually a dead give away you are a phony. Nice try though.
@Split:
Equality is just that. In modern societies both parents work and the difference in time spent by each parent with the children has shrunk. In the USA there is an average difference between market work and homework by the genders of only about a 20 minutes. { Link } In some European countries men work more. Of that dads spent far more time on the homework time than is commonly perceived.
If a mom or dad is home full time then that needs to be considered along with the economic implications and indeed couples can work out their best fit themselves. A presumption of equality needs to be the start point. I was a full time stay-at-home dad for 10 years with two infant daughters and I nor they had any problems.
The breast feeding is often used as a canard and a weapon. We had one mom here in Canada who used it as a tool to keep her separated husband away and was still breast feeding at 2.5 years of age. The judge saw through it. It was a new form of Parental Alienation. (see that John it is even used on infants)
John,
Given that you have posted here before under a woman's name, your post seems more like a plant than a genuine comment.
In any case, given your logic kids should also be banned from seeing their fathers for even two days a fortnight, right, because this is an inconvenience.
So in the event of a divorce, simply see your dad on your birthday, because that's all that kids need.
Well, the multitude of studies on the benefits of shared care disagree with you, completely.
..and please, spare us the fake posts. It simply helps no one.
David, I did read the posts and they are clearly written by people who lack maturity or insight, however I have seen plenty of similar attacks on women. I accept that some women might "use" breastfeeding as a means of control, but I assure you the vast majority of us just want the best start in life for our children.
My comments about no over nights were specifically relating to breastfed infants under 6mths of age and I would argue that for children breast fed up to 2 years of age, as that is what the World Health Organisation recommends, although the percentage of women willing to continue for that long is very, very small and the percentage who end up in the courts would be minute.
Personally, I did not leave my child in the care of anyone else for 12 mths, though many of my friends chose to have nights out or weekends away from their babies, I did not both because I believed it was the best thing for my child and because I found expressing excruciatingly painful. To order me to go through that ordeal several times daily every day of my life in order to satisfy the father's rights is to blatantly and outrageously ignore my own rights as a human being. A decent man would not expect this from any woman and would be willing to accept that he will get the time he desires with his children when they are ready for it.
Listen to yourselves - you are telling me that shared parenting groups run by women are full of nasty and vindictive types and yet when I tell you that from where I sit, it seems rather the same way for the shared parenting groups run by men, you want to argue the point and tell me what a great group of guys you all are. I have no doubt that many of you are, but neither am I under any illusions that many men are also bitter misogynists who believe that the best way to make themselves look good is to make women look bad.
Ash, I am not opposed to shared care, I am opposed to significant over nights for under school age children who are unable to articulate their needs and understand what is going on and I am completely opposed to 50/50 unless it is what both parents AND the children want, otherwise it will not work. I personally know of two families where it works well (with school age children who like it) and I know of one with a 4 year old where the parents move in and out of the house, not the child (great if you have the means to run three households between two parents), but I know of several more where 50/50 has been mandated by the courts for children under 5 either week about or split week and it is a debacle, even when both parents try hard the resentment and animosity destroys the kids and you can see how much they regress - bed wetting, tantrums, stomach aches. It is heart breaking.
The shuttling occurs with very young children where it is recognised by some magistrates that more than one or two over nights at a time away from the primary care giver can lead to distress in infants and small children. These sorts of arrangements in order to satisfy the "significant and substantial" of week nights, weekends and holidays/special occasions can see changes of residence occurring literally every other day. Such arrangements as split weeks also fall into 50/50 and that involves a change of residence every few days. It is well documented that older children can cope with more extended periods away from either parent, but babies and toddlers can not, so it is the tiny ones who need stability that we subject to the most shuttling.
I would suggest to anyone who thinks it doesn't do a young child harm to try it themselves. Get a friend or neighbour to pack your bag (Helpfully, they will forget your briefcase, ipod, mobile, favourite cufflinks, file you were working on or something else important to you) and then move week and week about to a house anywhere up to an hour and a half drive away, or day and day, or every three days, or every 5/5/2/2 and do it for a year. If you are satisfied that is a good way to live for the next 15 years or so, then go for it. Actually, if you have the means and you think its the way to go, keep it up and let the kids have the home they deserve. I lived like that for about 2 years when I was in my early 20s, travelling for work every other week and after the novelty wore off, I grew to hate it, so I quit the job. Problem is, a kid can't just choose to quit, or suddenly accusations come out about PAS or one or the other parent starts exercising their court appointed "rights" and the kid just shuts their mouth and learns it is better not to communicate your needs, because no one will listen anyway.
Shared care in any form is not a one-size approach, nor is parenting. Yet there are magistrates well known to be making it so, regardless of the individual circumstances and without regard to consequences and because of the laws, there are fathers who are demanding the one size simply because they can, with no consideration of how their children will cope. The argument "I grew up with a single mum and would have loved to spend time with my dad" is trite and about as convincing as "I wasn't breastfed and I'm just fine". Spending time with and living a revolving door life are two very different things.
The simple fact is that men in prison can have a meaningful relationship with their children from a 2 hour visit once a week, children whose fathers travel extensively for work still feel loved by them. In my personal experience, my ex was never out of bed when I took our child to day care and he was frequently home after bed time and that was his choice - he worked for himself so he has no boss to blame for it. The extent of their relationship prior to separation was a few hours on weekends. It doesn't mean our child loves him any less, nor is the quality of their relationship poor, so why should it be different now??? I would say that an hour at the park with his undivided attention a few afternoons a week, twice weekly help with homework or weekly attendance at soccer or ballet would be of far greater benefit to their relationship than a half hour of hurried breakfast every day, followed by 9 hours of day care and an hour of tired frustration while he tries to watch the news every night.
What is the obsession with equal time?
I am a dad and I believe shuffling the kids from one home to another is bad for the kids.
All the cries about hey what about me i am entitled to see the kids are so selfcentered.
I bet if most parents were in the kids shoes they would not like to be forced to go each week to different homes and to sit there and have to put up with some strange new guy or women that they most probably do not like.
I have looked at a lot of forums and mostly i see is posts about kids screaming i do not want to go or how much trouble the parents are having with the kids.
Its like this parent alienation crap the excuse for that is because the kids do not want to go.The parent who has them must be saying something nasty to the kids.
How is that good for anyone.
Most kids would resent having to put up with it and I do not blame them.
The sad thing is that kids do not get a choice out of this at all.
The minute they do complain all they ever get is ...oh you will learn to live it and accept it.
You all say it is in the interest of the kids but that is total crap its all about what the adults want nothing more.
Also if the so called experrts are so right then why is this generation of kids going down the toliet.
Btw I am a dad just in case you think i am some women pretending to be something else.
Split,
I just thought I would elaborate on the point of "shuttling".
You suggest that children in shared care arrangements get shuttled frequently from one household to another.
Further to my other point, I am sure you would agree that a child that see's their father for 2 nights per fortinight changes residence once per fortnight.
Well, a child that is in a 50:50 arrangement also changes residence once per fortnight.
So where exactly is the shuttling?
You profess to be against sole custody but ONLY sole custody has zero sleepovers, so your statement is inconsistent with your premise.
Further to this, routine is routine. If the child is in a routine of shared care then that is the norm for the child, just like going to school is.
It is no more a disruption then spending 6 hours per day in a classroom away from their parents.
SPLIT.
I would ask you to read the first 4 posts on this thread and see for yourself what was posted. If a man/father posted such things on a feminist/mothers rights site he would be banned and his posts erased, yet those posts are still there and as far as i know, the posters havn't been banned, so who are the hateful bullies, get real. Some time ago i posted on a family law campaign site run by a feminist group, on that site were a number of examples of children killed by their fathers, when i posted there asking why there were only examples of father perpetrated child homicide and citing a number of mother perpetrated child homicides my post was removed within 1 day and i was banned. Before you go off accusing men of being bullies i suggest you have a GOOD look around and see what is REALLY going on. I challemge you to get on one of these feminist/single mother sites, post as if you are a man and post something similar to what was in the first two posts on here but from a mans point of view, and see what happens.
I do agree with you regarding the removal of infants from breastfeeding mothers, but there are many mothers who use this as a means of keeping a father out of his childs life purely out of vindictive nastiness. I once visited a site called single parent australia, although this site touts itself as a bona fide single parent site it is run by a core group of single mothers. On several threads there were posts urging mothers to use breast feeding as an excuse to do exactly this. The whole site is full of women denigrating their ex's and men/fathers in general. I posted on there telling of my own experiences and that there were single mothers who were also abusing and neglecting their kids. No prizes for guessing what happened. But of course the female posters can post whatever hate filled posts they like against men/fathers.Go figure.
There is a final justice in the world... Unfortunately!
After nearly $30,000 spent in the Family Court, resulting in contact orders which were only useful as budgie cage liner, the things I predicted have started to come true.
My son at the age of 12 stated that he didn't want to see me anymore. Read into that what you like ... the ex wife wasn't happy and wanted revenge.
When we were together we enjoyed each others company, but he liked his own way and no discipline was obviously being applied by his Mother.
My prediction unfortunately was that he tempter if not controlled would one day spill over.
Now nearly six years later, this 6ft 2in "boy" is now physically pushing his mother about. Apparently having discussions with him about his behaviour doesn't work anymore!
Having a father in his life who could apply discipline and give examples would have made a difference. Now my son will join all the other children raised by mothers without fathers who will have no male role models to learn that physically pushing females around is not acceptable.
No wonder our jails are filling up with the young!!
Ash,
I appreciate your comments relating to day care as shuttling, but I would again argue the point that most parents (mother and father alike) would prefer very young children not be in day care at all, at least for the first few years.
Unfortunately, the cost of living requires many women to return to work before they or their babies are ready and yes, those who breastfeed express feeds in order to facilitate this. Given a choice though, I believe that many families would prefer this didn't happen. Many women simply give up because it is incredibly difficult to maintain. For a separated woman of a breastfeeding infant in shared care, she would be spending all of her spare time expressing, when she could be doing some paid work. Big sacrifice that many women would be prepared to make, but no thank you forthcoming from dad, no financial assistance to make this possible, just snatch and grab. My rights, thanks.
The difference is that most women in Australia return to work after 12 months and many choose not to work full time if they do return, yet the courts are ordering shared care of infants, some of whom are younger than 6 months and still entirely reliant on breast milk. Expressing one or two feeds for a baby 8-12 months of age in order for them to spend time with their father is a far cry from an infant who is demand feeding every hour or two. It is also very different for a baby to be spending a few days a week in child care, then coming home to the comfort and smell of a body they spent 9 months gestating inside, to expecting them to live without that comfort for days at a time, in order to satisfy the father's perceived 'rights'. I would have no objection to expressing a feed or two for a 6+ month old baby in order for dad to spend some bonding time, but would be in the court of appeal and all over the media quicker than a flash if someone tried to dictate to me that I express a week's worth of feeds every other week. It is a matter of degrees and a situation like that is very, very clearly in no one's best interest, except the father.
Some women choose to be away from their infants, some women are forced to because of work or illness. In just about every day care handbook in the world, you will find a statement to the effect that while they recognise the best place for a baby or toddler is at home, the next best thing is good quality care - a statement designed to make working parents feel less guilty, but again, the evidence is in that long day care is not generally considered to be in a small child's best interest, so why force it or something similar upon them if it isn't necessary and is less than ideal? Having an infant in day care just so dad can have his mandated access is not in the child's best interest, nor is using the argument that because a tiny percentage of infants are put into day care at 6 weeks of age that should mean that all babies can and should do shared care.
Unfortunately, you weren't the judge in that case, or in many others that have similar outcomes. Those cases are not about children at all, they are about one parent trying to hurt another and using the child to do it, which is disgraceful, yet the new laws virtually encourage it.
Also, I am not avoiding the issue of abuse. I stated very clearly that I am opposed to sole custody, unless of course there is a good reason not to.
Perhaps what would be of more benefit in these studies and the research into shared care would be to look at the actual circumstances of the separation. Look at the socio-economic factors, education levels of the parents etc. While abuse is perpetrated by people from all walks of life, I would be willing to bet there are related factors and pattern I find your emphasis on research on abuse of children by women in single parent households also to be offensive and again seems to be intent on discrediting women as mothers.
Overwhelmingly in this arena there is a thread of deliberately making women out to be poor parents in order to satisfy the argument for shared care. This is incredibly illogical. If children are being abused by any parent, then the only acceptable thing to do is protect them from that parent, not argue for shared care of the child. Saying that more single mothers abuse children than do single fathers is like saying dog owners tend to walk for exercise more than non dog owners. It is a matter of access. Despite the new laws, there are still far more children in single mother households than there are single fathers, what is possibly more important to look at are the relative proportions of abusers in each group and the socio economic factors and circumstances that led to their single parent status. Simply by virtue of the fact that there are more sole custody mothers than sole custody fathers, there will be a greater number of women abusing children. Actual numbers mean nothing if your sample sizes are different.
Ash, I would also argue that far more women are victims of cyber stalking and bullying than men. I myself am a victim of this and that is why I actively seek out these forums to see just how much vitriol is thrown at "non compliant" ex wives and partners and I'm not talking about the crazies. If a woman won't just do as her ex says, she cops a verbal flogging. The frequent and blatant use of the term "feminazi" is just one example of this appalling and disgraceful behaviour. The fact is, there are men out there who shirk responsibility, don't help out financially and abuse their former partners. Instead of encouraging attacks on women, turn the focus inwards - encourage men who struggle with the idea of being a good father and communicating nicely with their ex to develop the skills. There will always be some nasty ex who "wins" in the short term, but it is short lived. We forget that kids aren't stupid and if mum has been preventing them from seeing dad with no reason, or if dad has denied the kids the best start in life by being financially controlling, not paying child support, or interfering with breastfeeding, then the kids will eventually find out and the damage to their relationship with the at fault parent will be irreparable.
Unfortunately, as I stated before, we are not always dealing with reasonable people. I have never said that sole custody is the way to go, however the laws were changed years ago to favour mothers because sole custody to fathers was showing that children's health, education, emotional wellbeing, dentition etc were being neglected in the sole care of their fathers, but stupidly, the pendulum swung to far the other way, putting men out of the picture altogether.
Social changes in the last 15 or so years have meant that fathers by and large are far more involved with their children than they used to be, which is wonderful for everyone and anyone who disputes this is an idiot, but there are factors that need to be considered in deciding how shared care should be arranged that are simply NOT being considered at all in our courts since the introduction of the new laws. Things like the age and emotional maturity of the child, pre existing care arrangements, the employment status of parents, the mental health of parents, breastfeeding benefits, the ability of the parents to communicate and the list goes on. The laws simply do not work, neither did the previous ones and we need to make changes before we end up with yet another screwed up generation of kids.
In no way am I or many people who object to shared care suggesting we return to the previous system, which relied on the resident parent "allowing" access, which is in itself a degrading concept for fathers. What is important, particularly for children of tender years, is that they have the stability of a single home environment, but plenty of unrestricted access (including weeknights, weekends and holidays) to their non resident parent. Once the children are of an age to have input, I believe it is important for them to have a say in where and how they live. Overly prescriptive court orders can have the effect that children miss out on vital interactions with both parents. A child might place more value on a one hour birthday present shopping trip with dad, or a regular weekly trip to the markets, or help with homework than living with him week about.
Truly shared care would be two parents who, while not wishing to be together any more, can recognise the strengths and parenting talents of the other and how they fit in with the age and needs of each child. This means a father respecting and accommodating the need for breastfeeding, routine and a single familiar home environment where possible for an infant and a mother being able to identify that maths homework or girl trouble in a teenage boy might not be her forte, or the desire of a 10 year old daughter to try living for six months with dad, seeing mum on weekends, then vice versa. In the absence of this, it is up to a magistrate or judge to determine this balance and it is almost impossible to do when the parents are adversarial, nor is it appropriate for a complete stranger to be making judgements about how we care for our children. Unfortunately, the vast majority of parents are both selfish and stupid and can not see that regimented contact routines mean the parents often miss out and the kids will definitely miss out on the things they need most from each parent.
What we need in this society is more help for people to stay married, identification of and harsh, swift justice for abusers and a cuff around the ear for parents who are just incapable of putting their children first, demanding unreasonable and inflexible parenting plans in order that they don't 'miss out'.
Surely most people in our country regardless of their religious persuasion would know the story of wise King Solomon. Two women came to his court arguing over a baby. Both women lived in the same house and had given birth on the same day, but one of the babies died and now the two were fighting over the remaining child. King Solomon asked for his sword and said he would cut the baby in half and give one half each to the women. One woman agreed and the other cried out to give the child to the other woman. Solomon sheathed his sword and gave the child to the second woman, because a true parent would rather a child live without them, than be destroyed in the process of trying to be shared.
Just a little food for thought for those of us who believe we are pure in our beleifs and have only our children's best interest at heart.
Split,
Your comments are very selective.
Your shuttling issue was the same argument used against daycare for children.
Children shuttle every day of their lives between home and school, and this is simply part of their routine.
Regarding breastfeeding, if I was the judge in that case, and all things being equal, I would not have required overnights while still breastfeeding, but this is my personal standard and is neither here nor there.
Mother's regularly express (and leave the child with an effective stranger) in order to go back to work, but somehow when asked to allow the child to stay with the father, it is all of a sudden an unnacceptable issue.
..and you seem to avoid the growing body of evidence linking sole mother households with the highest risk factor for child abuse. These stats are startling and in and of themselves a strong argument to strengthen our shared care laws,
And regarding sexism within the ranks of fathers groups, I am stunned by your assertion given the non-stop hateful campain involving cyber-stalking and illegal harrassment.
Inside the boundaries of child abuse reporting by government agencies often a gender-neutral term such as âparentâ or âcaregiverâ is used and there is no further discussion as to whether it was a biological father or biological mother who perpetrated the assaults.
Western Australian child abuse figures are a disturbing snapshot of child victimization and its perpetrators. The numbers obtained under a 'Freedom of Information' (FOI) application clearly indicate that natural mothers pose a far greater risk and debunk an erroneous belief about natural fathers and child abuse. Experts say the figures can accurately be applied across Australia. The data is not surprising and is in line with international findings regarding perpetrators of child abuse.
The fact that the perpetrator figures were obtained under a FOI request begs the question as to why these gender based figures are not published annually by child protection authorities in every state and territory.
Furthermore, while children in single parent households are over-represented in national child abuse numbers and contrary to the extremist spin peddled by myopic zealots debunking presumptive shared care post divorce there is no evidence indicating an over-representation of child abuse in shared care families.
@split -"Your reference also to articles highlighting the poll in Canada I am guessing is the rather biased letter that came from a spokesperson for a "Shared Parenting" association in Canada ie, effectively a representative of a "father's rights" group, hardly reflecting the opinions of all Canadians. That would be like saying Edward Dabrowski, in all his ignorance, speaks for all of Australia (God forbid)."
____________________________________________________
You are correct in that you are guessing. The poll was conducted professionally by a polling firm under the auspices of the MP who is sponsoring the equal parenting bill in Canada. It effectively duplicates one taken back in 1998 during a joint Senate/Parliamentary committee study on shared parenting which resulted in the production of a report "For the Sake of The Children" which was never implemented.
Studies have been done by many reputable scholars on shared parenting outside of OZ and they clearly show children have far more positive outcomes when both parents are in their lives after divorce. It is important when they are doing a week about rotation the parents live close together and which will not interfere with their schooling or friends. As they approach the tween and teen age years friends are far more important than either parent - to them.
My reference to deadbeat moms living off the system applies more to the earlier comments by women with obvious personality disorders. They have only one thing in mind and that is entitlements and revenge. The children are collateral but important pawns to meet their goals. They are not uncommon here in Canada and they have the same views of ownership of children.
You seem to be a more reasonable person who understands children need both parents and I wish there were more moms like you. If there are two reasonable parents then appropriate schedules could be worked out in a more coherent and "best interest"
manner.
I do recommend F4E keep the comments by the earlier posters to show the decision makers the real truth behind those who shriek loudest and who the likes of Overington is cheerleading.
There are no surpises in your article. It goes much further than just demonising fathers as parents. There is a blantant and overwhelming shift in society over the last 5 - 10 years towards anti-male sentiment. Our very government organisataions that are supposed to put children first put the mother first. Watch ninemsn.com.au - almost every day there are multiple anti-male stories. And recently we find a woman who gets off a jail term for two counts of statutory rape.
I worked 100+ hours per week to keep my ex-wife in the lifestyle she demanded (which were damnded by abuse, threats and violence). I did almost all of the housework, cooking, and extra curricular work, whilst she watched TV and spent time with her mother, and what was shocking is that she is not an isolated or extreme case. Her bahaviour is far more common than you might think. To this day she still uses the children as a weapon with which to direct her anger at me. I won my shared care case, after two years and $35,000 and complete and utter financial destruction. I may have got 50/50 parenting, but I lost my career, my superannuation, my assets and my self esteem, but it was worth it. The kids are happier, performing better in school. Any person who thninks shared care is not approapriate is a fool, is blindsided by continual lies and deception of not just caroline and adele, but by key child related organisations in australia (they know who they are!) Anyone who cares about children supports shared parenting.
I should also say that I don't support the bizarre views that children should be subject to sole custody either, nor the anti-male sentiment of some female posters here. However, I do not believe for one moment that it is in a child's best interest to be shuttled back and forth between two houses like an object, particularly not a breastfeeding infant, which is happening more and more frequently, as reported recently by Overington and can be substantiated in the actual case files (Farmer v Rogers is just one example).
The school of thought that says women should "just express" (such as the comment by Edward Dabrowski) or that the father could just use formula, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the process of breastfeeding.
Each feed effectively "puts in an order" for the next and it relies completely on the premise of supply and demand. Expressing is not in any way a substitute for feeding at the breast and while it might suffice for a feed or two, it certainly would not allow a woman to maintain supply over a period of days or a week. Some women who breastfeed find expressing excruciating or impossible. Further to this, "comp" feeding with formula would simply cause the mother painful mastitis as the only way to maintain supply is to properly drain the breast. Yes, there may be women who prolong feeding in order to gain an advantage, but I would argue that most do not. Most women breastfeed because of the uncontested health benefits to both child and mother, because it is cheaper and more convenient. Do not make all women and children suffer because of the behaviour of a few - sound familiar? You guys don't all want to be tarred with the same brush because of a handful of deadbeats, so don't do it to us either.
The reason I raise this particular issue is that any reasonable father who had his child's best interest at heart wouldn't try to interfere with this process. Any reasonable mother would accept this sign of respect and do her best to facilitate as much time as practical with the father without compromising the baby's health, or the breastfeeding relationship.
If we want to take this whole thing further, why not find a way to allow men to gestate and breastfeed. I wonder then if they would be so prepared to hand their babies over for extended periods of time, causing themselves pain, discomfort and extreme inconvenience? Come on guys, most of us do it out of love for our kids, not to make your life difficult.
Unfortunately, as we all know, we are often not dealing with reasonable people, as if we were, the courts would not be being asked to decide cases like this. In my humble opinion, any man who would seek 50% custody of a breastfeeding infant (under 12mths of age), or in fact any over nights does not have his child's best interest at heart.
I would just like to point out that there is a very strong anti-female sentiment in many of these sites, unless of course it is reference to current partners who are obviously in favour, or ex partners who simply agree to whatever the father asks for.
I would argue that what is in the child's best interest might not necessarily be what either parent is asking for. Actually, like I said in my previous post, what is in the child's best interest is for the parents to remain together in the first instance. Already in separating at least one parent has put their own interests above that of their children.
I would also like to take the opportunity to object to comments about mothers on welfare. I have found myself in this category as a result of the unplanned pregnancy of another child of our now defunct marriage. My ex is the one who ended it for no real reason, he kicked us out of the house, is paying scant child support, I no longer have an income and am reliant for the first time in my life on welfare. I am an intelligent, educated and mostly reasonable person and I am deeply offended by the comments of one of your posters to the effect that I am a dead beat because of this.
As much as possible, I have done what is in my power to be as reasonable as I can, but for every guy out there who has been wronged, I can assure you that there is a woman or two who is suffering more, simply by virtue of her biology.
Honestly, I do not know what the answers are to this issue, but I do know that slagging women off or accusing all men of being abusers is not productive. Both parents should be involved in raising their children if it is possible. Neither one is more important than the other, but I reject the premise that this makes them equal. Men and women are different and they parent differently. The relationship is a complementary one and one can not readily be replaced with the other as the failure of sole custody has shown us, but that doesn't mean that children need equal time with both parents.
I think your German research article from WSJ was actually about degu pups and voles, not human children and in fact, the researchers themselves cautioned against extrapolating their results to human populations.
Your reference also to articles highlighting the poll in Canada I am guessing is the rather biased letter that came from a spokesperson for a "Shared Parenting" association in Canada ie, effectively a representative of a "father's rights" group, hardly reflecting the opinions of all Canadians. That would be like saying Edward Dabrowski, in all his ignorance, speaks for all of Australia (God forbid).
I have read extensively on this subject and I can safely say that your own representation of "research" is not without bias. Clutching at straws is not a robust way to further your cause. These two women have reported on real cases and real issues that our Family courts are messing up. I have read the actual transcripts of the cases they refer to - have you? So in 20 years time when the real research comes in and we find that we have a whole generation of children with mental and emotional problems related to homelessness, health problems like diabetes from a massive reduction in numbers of children breastfeeding, an inability to bond and form stable relationships, creating even more broken families that the courts have to deal with, will you say "sorry" to us for using our children as guinea pigs and destroying their lives? Sorry, but you only get one chance at life. The research needs to be done first, not the other way around. There have been nothing but debacles and screw ups as a result of these amendments and the wording of them is ambiguous. They are clearly not working.
I would dearly love to know how much parenting John Howard did of his own children to make him such an authority on the subject. Amusingly it obviously didn't win him the votes he thought it would. It is widely accepted in legal and academic circles that the 2006 amendments were not based on research, but simply on pressure from lobby groups (ie men's groups), so I find it a bit rich for you, as a lobbyist to be so prepared to hang these reporters for doing what you perceive to be the same.
Perhaps if more fathers strove for equality in parenting and domestic tasks prior to separation, there would be a lot fewer separations to begin with and then our children could have what they truly deserve - both parents together in the same home. If it weren't so sad, I would probably find the whole notion of men striving for equality to be completely absurd. You want relevant statistics? Check out the Australian Bureau of Statistics HILDA survey and you will find that women still do 76% of the parenting and domestics tasks in Australia, despite often being in paid employment. If you think that is equal, your maths is worse than mine.
It is hardly surprising that we have such major issues when so many men are so focused on self promotion and what their own perceived rights are that they lose sight of what children need and have a right to and they simply resort to attacking women in the process. Incredibly juvenile and not very good role models. So too, the genuine fear I feel when I read some of the nasty, ignorant, vindictive and hateful comments written about women by men in these forums on these sites. Yes, there are some women who write nasty things about men too and I'm not condoning that, I have just found the vitriol and hatred towards women by men to be far more sinister.
It would do many of you good to just grow up and instead of looking for ways to discredit, abuse and denigrate women, try looking for ways to work together for the sake of your children.
After all, you get more flies with honey
It is sad that a power war exists between parents "using" children post separation and divorce to what advantage. For $$$? For property??? To maintain and extended control of a former spouse??? I used to sit sadly and watch my step children checking every car that past by waiting for their weekend once a fortnight sleepover at Dad's home. "Is it Dad"? Anguishing if he happened to run ten minutes late. I was just as saddened to hear that my children became high as 'their fortnightly sleepover' with me drew closer. Bags packed days in advance. A new toy or teacher's praising comment or star in a school book proudly shared with me IMMEDIATELY upon arrival.
Time with Dad that was denied! Facts that were hidden! It was a torrid, emotionally draining period. Then as the universe unfolds so did they, all of them into young adulthood. No longer could they be controlled for a vested interest and the facts poured out. I could only listen. And hear I did! All the discourse strengthened their resolve for 'Dad' to be a part of their life. And the those with vested interest by their own doing, cling to the outer fringe to where they have been banished.
When will parents learn to truly demonstrate love of their children they promote a healthy relationship with a former spouse: even in an extended family. The rewards when they start to flow are insurmountable as 'Father Time' has revealed to me.
It is the child's right to able to spend time with both parents.
Neither parent should prevent the child from seeing the other parent.
The child does not owe the mother bacause she gives birth.
The child did not asked to be born but to be loved by both parents. Why should the mother or the father prevent the child from being loved and cared for the father.
It is precisely the attitude of some mothers who think that they own the child that share care and control is important to prevent abuse of sole custody rights.
Our prime minister has recently apologise for taking away the child from the parents. I hope our legal systems will not make the same mistake of taking away or allow the child to be taken away from the father
I just read the survey Ash. I am stunned that there is so much support for equal parenting in Parliament.
It tells me that this anti-shared care campaign is being driven by a few zelouts only.
The far majority support shared parenting.
Michael,
Log into the below section of our website and read.
You will find that we did do such a survey of Parliament in 2007.
The results were very interesting.
{ Link }
We also sent 1 and a half million emails to parliament via the F4E megaphone. We may need to re-install the Megaphone again going by how successful it was last time.
Michael. A very good idea you bring up as far as lobbying of MPs is concerned, and finding out what they think on the issue and i'll certainly be doing a bit of this myself now. As regards the press council, i believe F4E have put in complaints to the press council regarding bias and inaccurate reporting by the aforementioned journalists, and i know that i put my own complaint in regarding this issue, all to no avail. This is NOT to be taken as a political statement but perhaps since he is lagging in the opinion polls, and as he was brought up by a single father himself Malcolm Turnbull may be brought onside. He may not gain any of the feminist vote but as they are nearly all voting labour he won't lose any either, he could however win thousands of alenated fathers votes if he could be persuaded to take up our cause.
What are the positions of all the members of Parliament?? Both Federal and State Members.
Lobbying would be an effective educational tool.
maybe these Parenting stories and a few of the offensive biased comments should be packaged and sent to them?
- can someone in this "group" help automate sending responses to MP's and other organisations?
These "journalists - columnist" should be reported to the Press Council and the complaints sent to overseas equivalents, of the Press Council. along the with breaches of the UN Charter on Human Rights.
Overseas Publications may also be interested in knowing about the "bias of reporting" on this issue?
The issue of the Safety of Indian students is an explain of the Presses interest in Accurate reports - from and of Australia.
The safety of our Children and well being of our society, now and in the future depends on the Shared Care Laws being extended and the "racism and bias in the media" stamped out.
Scott,
You may be shocked at the level of cyber-bullying, cuber-stalking and email threats generated from these so called women's groups.
These bizarre postings on this blog, along with the threatening and astonishingly hostile private emails are one thing, but the online stalking of innocent fathers and posting of inflamatory and innacurate allegations against 'named' individuals is quite another.
It is in fact illegal activity, but they engage in this activity behind the protection of anonymous postings, in order to prevent decent people from excercising their right to freedom of speech.
This is the real face of the toxic mothers clan, as they are sometimes referred as.
Really nasty people who are full of rage and hatred.
They really are the WRONG type of people to be involved in such a child-sensitive issue as this.
Thankyou paulette and maureen.I'm well aware that most women/mothers are not like this. My own fiancee and her ex husband were also able to put together their own parenting plan without the need to go to court, despite their differences, and all their 3 children have thrived and are achieving well. One is currently doing her phd, the other daughter has done a baking trade and is now happily married and presented my fiancee with her first grandchild and her son who is still at school has plenty of certificates for high academic achievment.My fiancee gave her husband pretty much all the time he wanted with the children and he in turn paid her the required child support as is right and proper the result has been 3 well adjusted and achieving young adults. Unfortunately it is mothers/women like the first few posters on this thread who currently have the ear of the government and who are intent on taking us back to the bad old days which saw my own daughter end up as a half feral child in a class for slow children after only 3 years with her mother. Just as mothers get emotional, so do fathers when we see our children getting abused and neglected and the family court and social workers being complicit in children ending up as my own daughter did.
Welcome and i hope you put your own submissions and stories in.
Wow! I am shocked to hear some of the women's opinion's as a woman myself. I can only presume its emotional, rather than logical. We are rather emotional beings aren't we. It does give us women a sad reputation. I know guys aren't perfect but hey, nor are we.
Ash,
Maybe a useful addition to the "Fathers Stories" we are compiling for the A-G would be a collection of the hate-ridden posts from the likes Florin, Cynthia J and Jill McGee.
To me, they and their messages are the strongest and most powerful reasons for maintaining the current shared parenting laws. Not one of them even mentions the best interest of the children, its all about them getting revenge on their ex'es.
Which is what the old system assisted them to do.
I think its obvious from the posts on this blog who the abusers are.
Rather than put forward arguments, these spiteful mothers can only make offensive remarks.
If this is the extent of their ability to reason, then I can understand why they have lost custody of their children.
Ladies, engage in good faith in this discussion. making abusive posts is helping no one, least of all your kids.
Cynthia, How stupid are you. There are many reasons a child might be bed wetting. You can't be much of a mother if you don't know this. If you read on the internet that the world was going to end tomorrow i suppose you would believe that too. If a doctor doesn't believe you then i know who i would sooner believe.To your friends florin, l mont and jill, you have been allowed to post here, yet if i posted the poisonous lies and dribble that you have posted, on a feminist site, i would be deleted and banned from the site immediately. Guess that shows who the bullies really are.
Ian, feminists such as have posted on here are not exactly renowned for mature discussion or well reasoned arguments. On almost every forum i visit they almost always resort immediately to the denigration of ALL men, and the rationale that mothers and only mothers have rights, children have virtually no rights and men have no rights at all, only responsibilities.
Shared Parenting It Should be the Norm
By Lisa S. Ebert, JD
My marriage ended almost five years ago. And of course we share the parenting of our two children equally. I say âof courseâ because I can't imagine it any other way. I am often astounded at the parenting arrangements I see that are anything but shared.
{ Link }
I would urge all you moms out there that don't agree that shared parenting is indeed in the best interest of the child to read the above write up!
My comments;
I am a divorced woman, mother... when my ex and I decided to divorce we agreed to put our children first and life went on. My ex husband and I never stepped foot inside a court room. My ex remarried a wonderful woman that loved and nurtured my children (then 4 and 5 years old) right from the start and I loved her for loving my children. My children are now loving, caring adults and I have 4 beautiful grandbabies with number 5 due any day... my daughter and her husband are celebrating their 10th wedding anniversary on the 19th of November.
I had no idea that this CRAP! Was going on in our so called 'Family Law System'...
I met my partner and his two young children in 2005 and sadly, that is when we were all introduced to this shamefully flawed, family law system and parental alienation...
It was my partner's ex that ended their marriage for her lover, who was also her boss. Her income is double that of my partners so you know that her current husband's income is at least double that of hers. We have been to court 6 times since May 15, 2007. They can continue the fight indefinitely...
My partner and I on the other hand have been forced into an emotional, mental, physical and financial nightmare from hell and we are on the verge of losing everything because of it.
The saddest part of all is that, whatever my partner and I are feeling and suffering through, it is ten fold for our innocent children who wanted more time with Daddy!
How sad for all children!
Oz certainly has its fair share of those who would be considered to be on the fringe of responsible parenthood, moms in this case, who will believe anything about dads or men as long as it is negative. The most vile I have found are those who have lost custody for the very attitudes they show on comment boards
With them its not about chldren's best interest its loss of status and economics. Can you imagine their difficulty trying to explain how they lost custody and the loss of self esteem. It puts them into overdrive to crusade against dads and all men. In some cases they have the nerve to call themselves protective parents when, in fact, they are the abusers. I see some have visited here already.
One of the usual canards they use is child support and it is as predictable as the sun rising in the morning. "Dads just want shared parenting because they don't want to pay child support." It is as fallacious a piece of logic as exists. Dads will always pay for the support of their child but when it is shared custody they pay as any normal parent does. It goes directly toward the children not a second or third party.
The opposite is also true and closer to the real heart of the argument. The dead beat mom who may be relying on welfare and child support because she doesn't want to work for a living can't get all the entitlements she has been told she can manipulate out of the system. This really ticks them off even more so than before.
I have been observing Overington's highly biased and sexist reporting for a couple of years now from way up here in Canada and do wonder how she can get away with it. If she was doing this to anyone but men it would be considered racist, hateful, discriminatory and inappropriate. Her editors may well be eunuchs.
If you haven't lodged complaints with the newspaper itself, Mr. Murdoch personally, and ethics groups associated with the media it should occur. I've certainly complained myself to The Australian over the Canada Model article which was a letter, I believe, from a tiny group of radical feminist lawyers in my country who use the same well worn abuse canards as down under. We shoot them down with great frequency when they surface up here and it has to be frequent to dispel the entrenched mythology.
I wish you well and hopefully reason will prevail although I understand you have a socialist government and they are clearly in the feminist camp. Shared parenting is in the best interest of children and sole parenting, particularly by moms, leads to many negative social outcomes. One can see why with some of the comments by them here.
I will put your post in my blogs on top of the world to give it wider distribution.
Its a real shame Ash that the facts aren't being debated but are simply being obscured by these self-interested parties.
And what's with all the personal attacks? This is a forum for discussion not for abusive behaviour.
Girls, if you want to make denigrating comments then do it in your own private forums. This blog is for mature discussion and well reasoned arguments.
Caroline is the most honest and wonderful journalist in this country.
She is doing this to help our kids.
Stop whinging and start paying your child support, and leave the parenting to those who really care about our kids.
Reporters like Adele Horin and Caroline Overington know you Father Rights guys like to manufacture your own statistics and cannot be relied upon to provide any type of intelligent recourse. You have revealed too much over the years and have exposed yourselves as the misogynistic bullies that you are. Your time has come to an end and the era of the Fathers rights bullying is over.
I reported my ex for child sex abuse but no one believed me. They all said that I made it up.
Everyone knows that mother's don't make these things up. My boy wet his bed. On the internet it says that if your child wets his bed its because he was sexually abused.
I did not make it up. The doctor and DOCS were jelos of me that's why they said I lied.
If the laws are changed I will get my child back and people will have to believe me.
John Howard was stupid to make these laws. Father's should never be believed.
I left him because he was jelos of me. Now he has stolen my child with the help of John Howard.
Thanks to Caroline and Adele I now know that I will get my son back and stop him from seeing that sex abuser forever.
Thank you girls. Yeah girl power!
I can't wait for the old family laws to come back.
Then I will stop my ex from seeing my kids ever again.
Its my right and these shared care laws are bad.
I am the one who gave birth to my kids and only I should be able to decide where they go and what they do.
Hooray for Caroline and Adele. You go girls!