Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

General - Language usage to shut fathers out

Add Topic

Question the idea that things HAVE to be legislated. Use other techniques to get good outcomes..

Mothers' rights activists want to control fathers' access to their children.

In many cases mothers want to exclude the father altogether.

They use many strategies and tactics to try and achieve this.

One of these involves the use of language that seeks to portray the mother as the good parent (caring and protective) and the father as the bad parent (to be excluded).

Here's one example, from a mothers' rights activist, expressing her desire for mother custody, via her linguistic 'code':

Quote: …and include in the FLC concerns… "Children deserve to have their protective parent"

Where "protective parent" means "mother" … and all that implies about fathers!

The term "protective parent" is often used in feminist and mothers' rights discussion and writings.
Yes, I'm over the assumption that Mother's are perfect nurturers and the only reasons relationships/marriages break up is that it was the evil man's fault.

My partner's ex plays horrible mind games with their child and at the moment, I just sit on the sidelines watching this child get messed up, helpless waiting for the day when he's no longer cute or cuddly, or gets replaced by another child and we inherit the damage.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
The inhumanities that some mothers exact on their ex partners and their children through manufacturing false allegations, witholding contact, abusive behaviours, controlling types of activities in relation to schooling and holidays for the child are quite beyond belief… I thought I had heard everything until recently but every case with one party who will not allow the children to contact the other brings even more disgraceful behaviour… We need some other penalty and jail time.

We are determind to continue making changes to legislation until these nasty cretins are brought to heal like the mad crazed dogs they are.

Our patience is wearing thin. We are sick and tired of short change in contact orders, both interim and final, where good and loving dads and mums are seeking equal and substaintially equal time orders. We see these time after time being dashed by age old attitudes that relate to entrenched conflict as a primary reason to exit from the Governments published guidleines to better parenting through making substaintial time orders. Entrenched conflict is no longer a reason to preclude shared parenting. On what basis do they suggest it is? Why can't hand over occur at school drop off or collection.

The ridiculous orders of hand over at Police stations is a stain yet to be wiped from the Judicial table cloth.  At least we have one small saving in the East. Its a whole lot better than in the West. But what do you expect of a state that hardly sits with the Federal Constitution. Take a look at some of the news items regading WA published on the site… The Sun is yet to set on the WA Family Court. Bring in the Feds we say.

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
Interesting comment about WA.

We have an mishmash of various State child protection laws - which is ludicrous, and different States Laws regarding de facto property settlements. The Federal Family Law Act should apply equally throughout Australia and not have a different 'interpretation' in WA than in NSW




Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Actually your royalness and highly acclaimed Agog it was a very interesting situation just getting the FLA amendments endorsed in WA. It had to go through the WA Parliament with some ZigZags and speed bumps on the way. We appear to be legislating and implementing different laws in different States and Territories just so that lawyers and accountants may retire extremely rich. When you look at the burgeoning laws in State, Local Govt and Federal across every State and Territory all I can say is I hope someone has a handle on it all and is going to rationalise it.

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
The only good reason for all this different legislation was that Australia was so Geographically large, communication was difficult. Modern technology renders the argument useless.

The only reason we have all these different laws is to keep politicians and Lawyers in business.

England and Wales have one hierarchal Court system, one criminal code, so no matter where you live amongst the 45 million people you get the same. Australia with its 21 million has multiple Criminal Codes and multiple Court systems  -plus of course the Federal one.

We are just like America with its 50 plus Sates Laws and a Lawyers paradise

PS - Scotland has slightly different codes, basically rewritten English ones and slight differences to the Court system to cater for the historical differences in Scotland. Perhaps this is why WA is so different? with its high proportion of Scottish migrants


Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
I really would like to question the idea that things HAVE to be legislated. Use other techniques to get good outcomes - there is a role for society - not lawyers in this. Stealing is crime, violence is a crime, there is a lot of legislation around already.

Where is the evidence that making more laws or changes (particularly in CSA and Family Law) has made society a better place?

State domestic relationship laws are at odds with other laws - they should be dismantled. spousal maintenance should be dismantled. CSA and Family law need to be see in the light of whether they need to exist at all - not just what changes need to be made.

The topic is really LANGUAGE. CSA still use PAYER PAYEE language (and their computer systems are based on this) - meaning if you are the payer then the system automatically processes you every day - looking at bank accounts, calculating things, getting your latest tax return, garnisheeing wages etc. This sort of automatic processing does not occur for PAYEES - they are not automatically assessed to see if they should be working - assets etc change of circumstances, etc - you have to object - which is a long drawn out process (meanwhile your money is taken from you automatically).

I calculated the days required to object etc and if you look at their service levels basically you can spend hundreds of days objecting BUT they start billing, charging penalties and garnisheeing wages within the first few weeks (Its all about the children) - effectively bankrupting you from the start. Then when you get to court you spend hundreds of days in that process as well. Now its SSAT in the process - you can spend extra time in SSAT before you get to court because SSAT is fundamentally flawed as well.

Given we are moving to more likely 50/50 outcomes the idea that there is one PERMANENT payer is WRONG. People will change over time - so why disadvantage the payer? the model should be ACCOUNT and who contributes to it.

So we have a flawed model run by a flawed agency using flawed processes based on flawed legislation and the winner is?

Language in LAW is just as bad - The concepts are expressed to describe people - based on a preconceived notion. Law is not objective - it is subject to interpretation. To overcome this and being criticized for being biased - they make the law more verbose and complicated. This disadvantages the one who is objecting because of the complexity, time and money required to go through the process.

If you want to understand how the language works you just need to see how women are always associated with rights, children and families - because children get money and support. Men are not associated (in language or law) with families - just assets, income and responsibilities. :dry:

Generally its seen that Men have responsibilities - Women have rights.

Children now have rights (human - rights of the child etc)- but the problem is that men are not associated with with Families and Children. Things like IVF have helped that concept along.

The current issue is children's rights to know their father.

Maybe one day it will men's rights but I am not holding my breath - lest face it - anyone who stands up for men's rights is probably an angry old man or a weirdo ;)

In Summary - language is important because it represents concepts - concepts are associated and allow people to construct thoughts and reach conclusions.

Current base language is:

WOMEN, FAMILY, CHILDREN, RIGHTS, RESPONSIBILITIES,MEN

Next layer is:

PROTECTION, VICTIM, PERPETRATOR, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, SEXUAL ABUSE, ASSETS, INCOME, SPECIAL NEEDS

Then:

EARNING CAPACITY, INTERESTS OF CHILD

Somewhere in the ether there are other words like - FAIR JUST EQUITABLE (not a legal concept really).

And words which have disappeared:

SENSIBLE, RIGHT, WRONG,  INEXPENSIVE, INSPIRATION, SUSTAINABLE, HEALTHY, SIMPLE, COST EFFECTIVE, TIMELY

Any others?

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Any modern society needs laws. Even so called primitive societies have laws and even these are generally 'legislated' by councils of elders

My notion was to question that your postcode in Australia determines how an individual is to be treated

Go to the NSW side of Tweed Heads, rob a bank, commit an assault, commit a traffic offence and have a property settlement with your de facto. Then walk a few hundred metres to the QLD side and do the same things. Different laws, different penalties and different outcomes.


Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Jon Pearson said
Generally its seen that Men have responsibilities - Women have rights.

Children now have rights (human - rights of the child etc) - but the problem is that men are not associated with with Families and Children. Things like IVF have helped that concept along.

The current issue is children's rights to know their father.

Maybe one day it will men's rights but I am not holding my breath - lest face it - anyone who stands up for men's rights is probably an angry old man or a weirdo ;)

In Summary - language is important because it represents concepts - concepts are associated and allow people to construct thoughts and reach conclusions.

Current base language is:

WOMEN, FAMILY, CHILDREN, RIGHTS, RESPONSIBILITIES,MEN

Next layer is:

PROTECTION, VICTIM, PERPETRATOR, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, SEXUAL ABUSE, ASSETS, INCOME, SPECIAL NEEDS

Then:
 
EARNING CAPACITY, INTERESTS OF CHILD

Somewhere in the ether there are other words like - FAIR JUST EQUITABLE (not a legal concept really)

And words which have disappeared:

SENSIBLE, RIGHT, WRONG,  INEXPENSIVE, INSPIRATION, SUSTAINABLE, HEALTHY, SIMPLE, COST EFFECTIVE, TIMELY

Any others?
How about SHARED, JOINT, EQUAL, FRIENDLY, we are definitely in a shambles with legislation here there and everywhere. We are legislating for every small tiny eventuality, every single possible permutation is finely dissected and turned over and wrung dry. Where does it end as we push more and more legislative reforms into the many Government arena's. Will family law ever get that promised complete re write (HORISP) into simple and plain english? Will the Family Court Rules ever condense to a size similar to the lightweight agile Federal Magistrates.

Is it as simple as implementing a presumption of shared parenting time after separation… apportioned as required by the parties and enforced with the recently proposed 'Recovery of Contact Order' (RCO), which would work like an AVO but deliver contact, no shenanigans allowed unless before a local court in the first instance. The story will most assuredly go on. We have got them on the run with s60CC and s65DAA and withdrawal of entrenched conflict as a reason to exclude shared parenting (Some of the Judiciary don't know this yet) but there is more to do… As the Pirate Captain Jon English once said "We are not finished yet".

Nice to read your posts Jon..  :thumbs:

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
When I think of the super special men in my life (my late father, my partner, my children, my male friends) I think of the following words:

Strong, compassionate, brave, loving, fair, charitable, kind, forebearance, sweet, idealistic, determined, playful, hard-working, helpful, caring.

Children need their Dads to learn how to be a good man and also to know what a good man should be.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
The esteemed Executive Secretary SPCA said
Is it as simple as impliment a presumption of shared parenting time after separation..apportioned as required by the parties and enforce with Simons Hunt's proposals the 'Recovery of Contact Order' (RCO) which work like an AVO but deliver contact, no shenanigans allowed unless before a local court in the first instance.. The story will most assuredly go on. We have got them on the run with s60CC and s65DAA and withdrawal of entrenched conflict as a reason to exclude shared parenting (Some of the Judiciary don't know this yet) but there is more to do… As the Pirate Captain Jon English once said "We are not finished yet".
I have yet to read an explanation of the RCO that made sense to me. I still do not know whether the intent was to use a local Court (which would be a grave error and would probably be transferred to the nearest Family Law Registry) or an application to the Family Courts. Recovery of what contact? how much contact? before separation -were the children spending 50% of the time with their Father or 20%? in other words it still becomes an argument. If the intent was to treat it like an AVO ie accepted until challenged then it would be viewed as 'back door' 50/50 and would have as much chance of passing through a Labour government as Ed becoming Prime Minister.

You may as well use my daft argument of no CSA payments until that organisation has seen some sort of proof that contact is taking place.

The sooner the entrenched conflict issue is dealt with the better. Parents can communicate with email and other methods. Parents do not need to have physical contact with each other at all as there are school pickups and a very large network of contact exchange centres built by that American company (McDonalds).

As regards the other issue of 'emotional shutdown' in many cases what the psychiatrist is also saying is that one parent usually the Mother has some deep issues and really should be receiving some long term therapy rather than transferring it to a child who is more vulnerable by losing contact with the other parent.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
My understanding of where the process is now is that parents who want to separate and can't work through how to do it, or need guidance, go through PDR.

85% of people manage to hammer out some agreement through PDR.

The 15% that are left, go through the court process. As I see it, it is this group where one person (occaisionaly both) has some deep seated issues that have them hanging on to the conflict of separation.

This is where waiting to go back and forth to mediation or court, for resolution of issues doesn't work. I would like to see the implementation of a family consultant who is an independant umpire. Someone you could go to before the situation gets to contravention.

Contraventions (even the blatant ones) seem very hard to stick and even when they do, the punishment seems pretty light on.

Another thing I'd like to see in my eutopian world are processes to prevent break up. Screening for PND after child birth and 1 year follow ups with offers of counselling after child birth.

I'd like to see more self development/self esteem courses in high school. If you know who you are, it's a lot easier to spot what you need/want in a partner.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Artemis said
Another thing I'd like to see in my eutopian world are processes to prevent break up. Screening for PND after child birth and 1 year follow ups with offers of counselling after child birth.

I'd like to see more self development/self esteem courses in high school. If you know who you are, it's a lot easier to spot what you need/want in a partner.
Both are extremly good suggestions. I know that the FLRA (In the Community section here) are dealing with additional education in schools. The SPCA is also looking into additional educational plans / training at schools and in particular "Boys" education. Post Natal Depression is in my view a major contributor to marriage and partner breakdown and often occurs a year or more out. Any stats out there?


Site Director

Good Suggestions

The language is good and the suggestions are interesting. Boys in particular need legal guidance well before they enter into long term relationships. Its Ok to have love and lust but they need to know how society and the law has been set up.

Regarding PND and the BeyondBlue initiative http://www.beyondblue.org.au/index.aspx?link_id=103.885

So we have a national campaign to explain how women get "sick" hence need help and hence are not responsible for their actions. Its started out as first time mother but eventually will be all mothers regardless of the age of the child. So the time scale for PND will blow out. This allow greater time for a woman to get "help" and "Support" (Money). then it will "depression" in general (I had to do what I did because I was depressed (mental illness) and hence not legally responsible)

Lets connect a few dots here.

Men generally are considered alcohol and drug abusers if depressed - they are criminalised.

Men are shot dead if they are publicly mentally ill. In Canberra the police (years ago) entered a mentally (known) ill mans house (he lived on his own) at the request of the Mental health team and then the police shot him in his own house. Of course there was the mentally ill tourist shot on the beach in Sydney and then every week there is some mentally ill man being a) treated like a criminal and b) shot.

In  Canberra some months a go there was a national media broadcast about a man who was considered violent and dangerous after a phone call from a woman. His name and photo were splashed all over the place. Police were ready to kill him but he showed up at a police station some time later and explained the domestic issue - he was trying to break up from this woman - who obviously had some serious mental health issues. All charges were dropped, no explanation issued - no apology from anyone - no compensation.

Generally the language is about women needing HELP and SUPPORT and BEING SICK and men being CRIMINALS, VIOLENT, DANGEROUS and ANGRY that they are seen that way.

Connecting the dots…

PND means:

1) Women get money and help and sympathy

2) It can be an excuse for violence, affairs and strange behavior

3) It meas they can end the marriage if they want

4) It means that anything a man does at the same time will be seen as NON-SUPPORTIVE of the VICTIM

Let's combine this with applications for moving interstate with the new lover (because of the woman's feelings) and we have the ultimate scenario.

Woman has affairs (To help her self esteem), treats husband badly, leaves marriage (or he reacts),(no fault divorce except for abuse), she takes him to court for custody - because he was abusive (or because she was sick and he was uncaring), she goes for or gets kids, causes court costs to escalate (because she is "depressed").

She then gets Child support - having ruined his life - applies to move with lover to a new state country - gets full custody takes off with lover, kids, money, CSA (for the rest of his lief) AND damages his life as much as she can.

What a perfect system and still the woman in this situation is the victim because of PND?

No consequences , no responsibility, all the money and all the damage to cultivate one woman's feelings?

You have to admire the people who pulled all the strings on this one.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
"Under s.65L of the Family Law Act, that compliance with these orders be supervised by a Family Consultant appointed by the Manager Child Dispute Services, Brisbane Registry, and further that the Family Consultant so appointed give any party to these orders any assistance reasonably required by that party in relation to compliance with, and the carrying out of, these orders, until 31 December 2007."

I copied this out of a recent judgement (but have lost the reference, will search for it). This is the kind of "independant umpire" approach I was alluding to.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Artemis said
When I think of the super special men in my life (my late father, my partner, my children, my male friends) I think of the following words:

Strong, compassionate, brave, loving, fair, charitable, kind, forebearance, sweet, idealistic, determined, playful, hard-working, helpful, caring.

Children need their Dads to learn how to be a good man and also to know what a good man should be.
Well Said!

I was raised by my mother alone and not that I turned out bad. I just seemed to always be missing something. It was not until I had my boy and watched how we interacted that I learned the reason for this. A boy needs to have his father. We teach our sons about his surroundings how the world works, were men we are drawn to mechanical things which means we learn as much as we can about the world hence the reason more car accidents are caused by guys. ;) (sorry but it is true lol)

We like to push things to see what happens! Females on the other hand are generally all about feelings if they don't feel good doing something they generally don't do it. It's my opinion now that boys without the contact with there fathers run the risk of loosing the ability to socialize effectively with other males as there ideals are quite different. It's only a thought at this stage but I think im somewhat on the right track!

Johann
I'd like to see more self development/self esteem courses in high school. If you know who you are, it's a lot easier to spot what you need/want in a partner.
I think this is an interesting idea and would encourage its progression.
Artemis has raised a very good point - we have classes in schools supposed to prepare children to live and operate in the "real world" yet do little in regard to relationship building, parenting and other life skills equally as important as earning a living.

Marriage or formation of "permanent" relationships is very much an emotional issue and people enter into it pretty much making it up as they go along, dealing with issues as they blow up. Much the same with parenting. How much more realistic is it to have relationship / parenting plans that are taught during school years that take into account the problems that can arise, such as post natal depression.

Remember as kids we would make up lists of what we would want in a partner and populate it with "must have a sense of humour" "must be cute" "must like the same tv programs as me"?

A program at school that covers these issues, teaches kids what to expect from relationships, parenthood etc and help them to create their own lists of what they want in life, to be cross matched against future partners will help avoid problems that crop up later.

I guess the old saying "if you fail to plan you plan to fail" is true even of relationships and parenting.

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
More to the point Vernichtung is that fathers play a much larger role in children's lives than previously thought. We pass many life lessons along that is sadly missed by those who have be separated from their fathers.

Both parents are needed to give balance to the child so long as there is no chance the child is in mental or physical harm.  Neither parent can be replaced but as I tell my daughter it's OK to be friends with her mums boyfriend.

A lot of time the parents attitude can make a big difference especially when the kids start school where they teach the negatives of bullying and such. Good attitude helps kids adjust even if it's only one parent.
As a steppie, I feel I have a valued role to play - as does my partner with my boys… but there's no substitute for the real deal.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
There are positive step-parents and negative step-parents as there are positive situations and negative situations.

When entering into some relationships the step-parent is required to take on the role of the matriarchal parent whilst the other parent remains the children's main support and friend this in effect sets up alienation from the new parent figure with the other parent encouraging the rift claiming the dependency of the child.

I do not suggest your family is like this but many are so it's important that the children know the difference of a parent and the partner of a parent who does not have the same significants in their lives but should be viewed as a friend. This is also a good technique if you are aware that your children's partner has been violent to their own children and you fear that corporal punishment may be used to chastise your child. Your child then knows this person does not have the right to hit you in anyway nor verbally abuse you because they are not mum or dad but rather a friend, you have given them the right to say " You can't do that " rather than accept.

I am not suggesting you do not have a valuable positive role to play and the same goes for your partner but what I suggest is it's important to children to understand what role each person has.

No one can replace my daughters mum or myself but along the way there may be significant other who will play a part in her life whom she will see as friends. This is my way to keep my daughter safe and prevent her mother doing to her boyfriend what she did to me. My daughter enjoys his company and even loves him but she is not confused in his role.

I openly appologise for any offense although I doubt your relationship is like as I've described and I do believe Significant others have a major role to play in the upbringing in children's lives I just believe they should do so as friends and supporters and not be asked to take on a matriarchal role.    
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets