I have met and heard the tragic stories of many parents. PA is a function, by and large, of a custodial ex-partner, although some alienation can start while the couple is still together.

This blog is a story of experiences and observations of dysfunctional Family Law (FLAW), an arena pitting parent against parent, with children as the prize. Due to the gender bias in Family Law, that I have observed, this Blog has evolved from a focus solely on PA to one of the broader Family/Children's Rights area and the impact of Feminist mythology on Canadian Jurisprudence and the Divorce Industry.

Friday, July 24, 2009

More from OZ ~ Divorced dads fear rollback of parent laws

Gosh its been a whole 3 years since some brave Ozzy legislators passed laws to try and level the playing field in the war against dads and men. It hasn't gotten even close to level as only about 15% of dads have 50-50 custody but the vocal minority of socialist victim feminists, some of whom are listed in Overington's most recent diatribe against dads below, are getting most of the press. Note Overington's selectivity when interviewing ensuring most of those who are for a reversal to the good old days of absolute matriarchal supremacy when it comes to parenting get to promote the review covering up the real agenda of a WalMart style roll back. If it is reversed there will be a great backlash. Men have fought and died in wars to protect everyone including the victim feminists but especially their own children. As a dad I can attest nothing else matters to me than my children. Nothing!

DV in most western democracies is pretty much equal between genders. In some cases of IPV the female has been shown to be the initiator in 71% of cases. It has also been shown females will not get injured nearly as much if they don't initiate the violence. Single family mothers in the USA and parts, if not all of OZ, are clearly the biggest abusers and killers of their children far and away. The hysteria over dads wanting equality has got to stop and politically correct and gutless politicians need to evaluate it carefully.MJM

Caroline Overington | July 25, 2009

Article from: The Australian

THE shared parenting laws that have given divorced fathers more time with their children will be rolled back because of the power of left-wing feminist women in Kevin Rudd's cabinet.

That is the view of men's groups that lobbied for the laws when the Howard government was in power, and who now fear "that 15 years of progress in getting fathers and children to spend time together is about to be undone".

"I met with (Attorney-General) Robert McClelland a few weeks ago, and it was clear to me that these laws are being rolled back," said Sue Price, of the Men's Rights Agency.

"They (the Rudd government) say they are reviewing the law, but basically the law will change because in the Labor government there are a number of women who are well and truly indoctrinated in a 1970s feminist movement background, and they do not value the role of men in society.

"(Tanya) Plibersek pushes domestic violence based on incorrect data. (Nicola) Roxon dances a merry dance around men. The fact is that children are at far greater risk from their mothers. Mothers kill more children than fathers, and that's a fact."

Mr McClelland yesterday appointed former Family Court judge Richard Chisholm to review family law processes, using the case of Darcey Freeman, the girl thrown from Melbourne's West Gate Bridge, allegedly by her father, as a reason to consider change.

In a statement, Family Court Chief Justice Diana Bryant said she supported the review of "how the courts manage the important issues of violence in family law matters. I welcome any suggestions as to how we can improve with system."

Edward Dabrowski, of the Shared Parenting Council, was dismayed, saying: "Vocal minority groups, mostly women, have latched on to a few cases and are now saying the shared parenting laws are leading to situations

that are loaded with domestic violence.

"That is not the case, and if there is to be a review, it ought to be a public review. They should have a full inquiry and let's see what the public, including fathers, think about going back to the old days."

Ms Plibersek's spokesman said she was on leave but would perhaps comment when she returned to work on Monday.

However, NSW Acting Attorney-General Verity Firth entered the fray, saying there "seems to have been considerable problems" with the new shared parenting law in reconciling a child's right to a "meaningful relationship" with both parents "and the protection of the child from exposure to violence".

Ms Firth said there was some evidence that a "very strong pro-contact culture had arisen even where the safety of children couldn't be guaranteed".

Jen Jewel Brown, of the National Council for Children Post-Separation, welcomed the review, saying the new Family Law Act was working as a "wrecking ball for many damaged children and their parents, in particular, as they try to re-establish themselves after the breakdown of abusive relationships".

She said mothers had grown reluctant to raise allegations of violence in the Family Court because they feared being "accused of raising false allegations or not promoting a meaningful relationship with the other parent", which can mean they lose custody or face the entire bill for court costs.

The chairman of the Family Law Council, John Wade, said there was an "appetite for change" and "a feeling that we need to look at it again, and see whether it's working", but he said any changes were "bound to be controversial because it's the area of law that most Australians have contact with, either themselves or through their relatives."