Men being whacked again in the Australian Family court

[Belle]

Labor is making proposals to amend our Family Law Act so that the presumption of a 50/50 custody ideal no longer applies. According to feminists, fathers don't deserve 50/50 care of children because of increases in 'domestic violence'. Of course, NO actual evidence is EVER provided for these claims nor the fact that women also instigate DV and coercive control - often using sex as a weapon in the marriage - and lie like the clappers with impunity in the FC. So we remain on the roundabout where men have to prove themselves over and over and the lie that it's all about the children continues to be perpetuated. This suits many women, in particular, very nicely in their pursuit of a greater share of the family assets and continued maintenance. There are still decent, self-respecting women who don't lie but we cannot rely upon a system which is based solely on them.

We expect this kind of thing when we get a Labor government but the fact that the Coalition government did nothing about the FC, despite a parliamentary enquiry on its watch, will never be forgiven. Morrison had a 'problem with women'? Far from it; he was TERRIFIED of them, and so am I. There was a great deal of truth behind the old adage - more than people were prepared to contemplate - "happy wife, happy life". But when womens' expectations of happiness are not met WATCH OUT. Doesn't matter at all if men are happy or unhappy because ideology places women in the forefront of a (supposedly equal) relationship with their own needs prioritized over that of their spouses. Equality only when it suits.

Two things: if we are all expected to respect women (and that would be the ideal) we need to have structures in place which don't enable them to lie and be rewarded for it, as is the case in the Australian Family Court. Give them the opportunity to be better than men, instead of claiming that they are, and bring back perjury (which was removed by our only female PM). Secondly, treat women with the equality they've been asking for and EXPECT them to work full time when a marriage ends, just as their ex-husbands do. Independent psychologists told my son that they knew his wife was lying but that they couldn't do anything about it as the court wasn't interested!! Men also lie, but they are already PRESUMED to lie and treated on the basis of gender accordingly - whether that's true or not.

In the absence of those things men will continue to use Tinder instead of going into relationships with women over the age of 30 and women will continue to be needy, with significant numbers unsuccessful, in finding a mate. My 45 year old niece told me recently "all the men I've met in the last decade refused to have a relationship because they'd all been done over in the courts" and my 50yo nephew said "I have women asking me to 'have a baby with them'". Plenty more stories like those two.

Ain't that the face of progress, right there??!!

Justice in a fraught sphere of law
EDITORIAL
Submissions on the Albanese government’s draft Family Law Amendment Bill are due by February 27. And judging by initial reactions, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus can expect strong debate among stakeholders and the community. In a sensitive area of law where solutions are rarely straightforward, it should go without saying that in cases where parents have parted company, the best interests of their child or children should be at the forefront of decisions about living arrangements and time with the parents. As Mr Dreyfus says, problems such as extensive court delays, protracted litigation, inaccessible support services and inadequate protection for those at risk of family violence need to be addressed. They have dogged the family law system for many years.

What is more problematic is the proposal to remove the order for “equal shared parental responsibility”. That proposal, added during the time of the Howard government, directs the court to apply the presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for their parents to have equal shared parental responsibilities. In some cases that is true, in others not. The current misunderstanding, that equal shared parental responsibility equates to equal time with the children, needs to be clarified. As the government notes in its response to the inquiry of the joint select committee on Australia’s family law system, that misunderstanding “can lead parents to agree to unsafe and unfair arrangements, or encourage abusive parties to litigate matters on the false expectation that they are entitled to equal time with their children’’.

That said, it would be unfortunate if the proposed changes took Australia back to a time when “mums had the kids most of the time and dads would see their kids on school holidays”. That is the concern of Patrick Parkinson, the family law specialist who chaired the body that advised the Howard government on its decision to amend the Family Law Act in 2006. The draft released on Monday “stripped almost all references which encourage the meaningful involvement of both parents in relation to the child after separation”, Professor Parkinson told The Australian. “Under the guise of simplification, it actually involves radical change and radical reversal after a unanimous agreement of a parliamentary committee in 2003 and almost unanimous agreement of the parliament in 2006.’’ As opposition legal affairs spokesman Julian Leeser says, it is important for children to have a relationship with both parents “as a starting point”. Much, as always, will depend on the judges hearing cases. Judges will still be able to make orders for shared parental responsibility and equal time, as Jess Malcolm reported on Monday.

Domestic violence is looming as a major factor in the debate, with Full Stop Australia advocacy manager Angela Lynch arguing that more than 80 per cent of families in the Family Court had identified family violence as an issue for them. Domestic violence advocates warn that the presumption of equal shared ­responsibility provision was often used by violent perpetrators to control the family and children. Less adversarial outcomes that provide for children’s safety and best interests will require resources, patience and a system with the flexibility to arrive at optimal arrangements.

("The Australian")

[jserraglio]

my 50yo nephew said "I have women asking me to 'have a baby with them'".

What sorta guy talks to his aunt that way?

If this is what passes for Australian manhood, little wonder the Family Court whacks it down hard. Sounds to me like your Family Court is nothing less than a National Treasure. A priceless resource that keeps wussiness at bay.

Count yourself lucky to have them, dear Belle!

[Rach3]

Apparently, not always:

https://sports.yahoo.com/tennis-star-ky ... 54276.html