Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Guest considers that only fathers want shared parenting

Guest considers that only fathers want shared parenting

Oceanluvva, I'm so sorry for what you and your family are going through. I am going through the process myself with a violent ex and completely understand your frustration. Unfortunately the law is on the side of fathers at the moment and rarely considers the needs of children, assuming that it is in the best interests of all children to spend equal time with both parents. Lawyers and mediators are also pushing this agendaJust because there is no "proven" domestic violence, doesn't mean it didn't occur, but the sad reality is that the courts don't care and children end up suffering for it. I'm sure you've heard of Darcy Freeman, an example of the worst case scenario of courts ignoring DV and putting children at risk because the violence was not "proven". Very few women actually lie about DV, but because of those few it is presumed that all women are lying unless there are police records to prove otherwise.
 The courts also don't care whether the parental relationship is amicable or not, which also puts children at risk. The good news is that things will be changing, as more and more studies are conclusively proving that shared care does not work in all family situations and should not be the default. Actually, the only time they do work is when the parents have a cooperative, amicable relationship.
 It is a sad time for children and mothers. If you look up the studies you will see that fathers are the only ones who are actually happy with shared care. Kids in shared care are far more likely to experience anxiety, depression, poor concentration and emotional/developmental problems due to the instability of going back and forth and conflict between the parents.
 You should reach out for support and advice to others who are going through the same thing, try singlemotherforum.com as clearly no one seems particularly understanding here.
 
 All the best to you and your kiddies xo


Note that he above text has been purposefully made hard to read. The reason is that the text, from somebody posting from Sau Paulo (201.200.1.xxx),  is composed of gross falsehoods, severe gender discrimination, major intolerance and hatred and condones systemic child abuse.

Last edit: by MikeT

Guest said
Oceanluvva, I'm so sorry for what you and your family are going through. I am going through the process myself with a violent ex and completely understand your frustration. Unfortunately the law is on the side of fathers at the moment and rarely considers the needs of children, assuming that it is in the best interests of all children to spend equal time with both parents. Lawyers and mediators are also pushing this agendaJust because there is no "proven" domestic violence, doesn't mean it didn't occur, but the sad reality is that the courts don't care and children end up suffering for it. I'm sure you've heard of Darcy Freeman, an example of the worst case scenario of courts ignoring DV and putting children at risk because the violence was not "proven". Very few women actually lie about DV, but because of those few it is presumed that all women are lying unless there are police records to prove otherwise.
 The courts also don't care whether the parental relationship is amicable or not, which also puts children at risk. The good news is that things will be changing, as more and more studies are conclusively proving that shared care does not work in all family situations and should not be the default. Actually, the only time they do work is when the parents have a cooperative, amicable relationship.
 It is a sad time for children and mothers. If you look up the studies you will see that fathers are the only ones who are actually happy with shared care. Kids in shared care are far more likely to experience anxiety, depression, poor concentration and emotional/developmental problems due to the instability of going back and forth and conflict between the parents.
 You should reach out for support and advice to others who are going through the same thing, try singlemotherforum.com as clearly no one seems particularly understanding here.
 
 All the best to you and your kiddies xo


A prime example of the garbage, falsehoods and distortions that some will resort to in order to exploit and thus abuse children for their own very sick, intolerant, and demented gain.

Perhaps guest would like to explain why they are posting from a Braziallian IP address (201.200.1.xxxx). Perhaps guest is showing how willing to lie those of guests ilk are.
What a Load of absolute codswallop.

Judges err on the side of caution at all times most often to the detriment of the father and in some cases the end result is  that its found the mother  has lied and is causing mental abuse but the father is denied contact because those  years of erring on the side of caution during the case which  more often than not has been brought by a father denied access in the hope of gaining  it by court order means the children have apparently no realtionship with the father.





many many cases of abuse are brought forward mid trial … how could anyone possibly forget they were abused only to remember it when the so called abuser wants  children to have access to there father.



strangely there are  no reported cases of violence by the mother causing her to have no contact with the children due to a judge erring on the side of caution.





yes there are many people both male and female abused by there partner or exes

it  still remains an effective tool for delaying a case and denying contact.



If judges punished the liars by awarding the accused but innocent  residence or jailtime cos lets face it family court is the only court 1 can tell unashamed obvious lies in and not get punished and have it exempt from litigation outside of court the only other place that comes close is parliament and parliamentry priviledge where politicions can tell  lies and name names and  not be sued.

Police cannot jail a criminal without evidence yet a family court judge can deny a child its right to have contact and communication  on the strength of an allegation by a party wanting to deny access



Think about this



if a man told a judge his ex verbally and mentally abused him infront of the children the judge does  nothing the woman says it and whammo cops are at the door kicking him out of his own home and he cannot see or contact his kids for at least 3 months

I dont want to have to tell my son when he grows up if you meet a woman and she disagrees on something with you just back down cos she will take the house the car the kids and you'll have to pay the  outstanding  loans, or  buy a house before you decide to get serious with anyone and make sure its in youre mother's name so your future wife / defacto cant take it from you and you still have to pay mortgage

anyways thats my rant… there are many good women out there as there are many good men out there and not every relationship breakdown ends up with 1 party fighting csa and the courts system.

You can fool some of the people some of the time but you cant fool all of the people all of  the time unless they work for CSA and youre a Payee:)
IT's interesting….I have just read Leroy's post and, as a woman, I find it too is "composed of gross falsehoods, severe gender discrimination, major intolerance and hatred and condones systemic child abuse".
I wonder if it too will have the text size reduced….????
 It is a sad time for children and mothers. If you look up the studies you will see that fathers are the only ones who are actually happy with shared care. Kids in shared care are far more likely to experience anxiety, depression, poor concentration and emotional/developmental problems due to the instability of going back and forth and conflict between the parents.

I've increased the text to appease some -

This topic started well but seems to be getting a bit heated & gender biased. The fact we have an excellent site like this demonstrates to me that Fathers are not actually happy with current shared care processes and are actively trying to improve the situation for everyone.

Let's not forget that many kids caught up in this started off in a happy stable family environment with a mum and a dad living together. I read that in a recent study 95% of children in shared parental care still wanted mum & dad to get back together. Wow 95%. In many cases (studies show) it is a lack of communication that breeds dissatisfaction in a relationship. If parents honestly thought about the consequences separation will have on their children and sought professional help for the relationship first as the courts are pushing, then maybe there would be less hurt children.

How many parents have decided to end a relationship with that declaration "I just want (other parent) out of my life" but now see them more often when delivering and/or retrieving children? The studies I've read have concluded that kids are far more likely to experience anxiety, depression, poor concentration, and emotional/development problems from separation and exclusion from the other parent. But are less likely to experience those things if their other parent is involved in their lives.

Some reports state that constant denigration of the other parent by the parent the child lives with often causes those same issues. . . .

To oceanluvva,

There seems to be a big focus here on winning over the other party. For both of you. No one can win here. Your child doesn't see their dad much. Ex Partner doesn't see his child much. And you suffer anxiety and want to move but can't.

Think of what you have - You are now happily married - I suggest you seek councelling for the anxiety and think about what your child wants.
Jamalu said
I wonder if it too will have the text size reduced….????
Having considered Leroy's post under such criteria, no it won't have it's text size reduced, well at least by myself, perhaps another person capable of doing so will see Leroy's post in a different light. However here's my analysis of Leroy's post :-

Leroy said
What a Load of absolute codswallop.
In my opinion guests post was far worse than simply codswallop as previously noted and as further explained by Leroy.

Leroy said
Judges err on the side of caution at all times most often to the detriment of the father and in some cases the end result is  that its found the mother  has lied and is causing mental abuse but the father is denied contact because those  years of erring on the side of caution during the case which  more often than not has been brought by a father denied access in the hope of gaining  it by court order means the children have apparently no realtionship with the father.
I have seen this facet of bias toward a mother on numerous occasions. Perhaps one of the most notorious being a decision by the ex chief justice, considering that a child should be placed with a mother who was in an ongoing relationship with a person convicted of having what I believe was Australia's largest collection of pornography. Fortunately for the child this rather sick decision was later overturned and of course the decision maker now no longer is in such a position where that person can make such decisions. Not that the person is not still trying to peddle any anti-father garbage that can be peddled to those so willing to fight not for children but for some irrational nonsense that a mother by being a mother is a better parent than a father. One simply has to look at the facts in regard to the amount of children who have their right to know and be cared for by their parents denied in correlation with the gender to see that Leroy's argument stands the test of any scrutiny. Unlike guests hate filled and anti-father filled garbage Leroy's comments do not make a judgements based upon entire genders.

Leroy said
many many cases of abuse are brought forward mid trial … how could anyone possibly forget they were abused only to remember it when the so called abuser wants  children to have access to there father.
strangely there are  no reported cases of violence by the mother causing her to have no contact with the children due to a judge erring on the side of caution.
Again from experience, this is fact and can be borne out by looking at decisions, albeit that those decisions represent a small fraction of concluding events. I have absolutely no-doubt that should sound research be undertaken that the percentage of such false accusations would be reflected in those matters not concluded by a decision maker e.g. where consent has been obtained.


Leroy said
yes there are many people both male and female abused by there partner or exes

it  still remains an effective tool for delaying a case and denying contact.
This, quite obvious to any who speak and understand the English language, is not at all gender biased, however it would appear that Jamalu's mind, for whatever reason, cannot understand that male or female does not mean female only.



Leroy said
If judges punished the liars by awarding the accused but innocent  residence or jailtime cos lets face it family court is the only court 1 can tell unashamed obvious lies in and not get punished and have it exempt from litigation outside of court the only other place that comes close is parliament and parliamentry priviledge where politicions can tell  lies and name names and  not be sued.
The previous observation applies to this.

Leroy said
Police cannot jail a criminal without evidence yet a family court judge can deny a child its right to have contact and communication  on the strength of an allegation by a party wanting to deny access
Yet another instance of not what Jamalu says is
Jamalu said
"composed of gross falsehoods, severe gender discrimination, major intolerance and hatred and condones systemic child abuse".



Leroy said
Think about this
Perhaps Jamalu should explain how this is
Jamalu said
"composed of gross falsehoods, severe gender discrimination, major intolerance and hatred and condones systemic child abuse".




Leroy said
if a man told a judge his ex verbally and mentally abused him infront of the children the judge does  nothing the woman says it and whammo cops are at the door kicking him out of his own home and he cannot see or contact his kids for at least 3 months
Ok so this is a little biased in that the example takes the point of the man making an accusation, however I do not see any words of hatred, rather it describes a scenario, which I have abosultely no doubt reflects what has happened. Obviousoly to consider this as
Jamalu said
"composed of gross falsehoods, severe gender discrimination, major intolerance and hatred and condones systemic child abuse".
, then every post on this board/forum on the other board/forum and on many boards/forums throughout the world, that makes an accusation fits Jamalu's determination that such a post is
Jamalu said
"composed of gross falsehoods, severe gender discrimination, major intolerance and hatred and condones systemic child abuse".
.

Oh dear what about this post by Jamalu:

Leroy said
My daughter's father and I split up over 6 years ago after a very violent relationship (him against me). Our daughter (now 8) witnessed the violence and the stalking that came after separation, as well as her father trying to commit suicide three times in her presence, and was quite traumatised at the time. Not long after separation, despite an intervention order, my ex took our daughter without my permission from childcare. He refused to give her back despite the fact he was homeless at the time. I was granted a Recovery Order and the Federal Police eventually found her and returned her to me (several days later).
?

Yes Jamalu appears to fits Jamalu's own decsription of
Jamalu said
"composed of gross falsehoods, severe gender discrimination, major intolerance and hatred and condones systemic child abuse".
. So it would appear that with Jamalu we have to add hypocrisy to the list. However perhaps Jamalu would like to explain what the difference between Leroy's use of an example where accusations are made and Jamalu's use of accusations. I do understand that Leroy's is theorectical, although I do suspect based upon what happened and that Jamalu's accusations are meant to be seen as fact, but I cannot see how this would change the determination that such words are
Jamalu said
"composed of gross falsehoods, severe gender discrimination, major intolerance and hatred and condones systemic child abuse".
.  



Leroy said
I dont want to have to tell my son when he grows up if you meet a woman and she disagrees on something with you just back down cos she will take the house the car the kids and you'll have to pay the  outstanding  loans, or  buy a house before you decide to get serious with anyone and make sure its in youre mother's name so your future wife / defacto cant take it from you and you still have to pay mortgage
Perhaps Jamalu would explain how this meets the definition of being
Jamalu said
"composed of gross falsehoods, severe gender discrimination, major intolerance and hatred and condones systemic child abuse".
. I personally can't see this at all.

Leroy said
anyways thats my rant… there are many good women out there as there are many good men out there and not every relationship breakdown ends up with 1 party fighting csa and the courts system.
Perhaps Jamalu would explain how this meets the definition of being
Jamalu said
"composed of gross falsehoods, severe gender discrimination, major intolerance and hatred and condones systemic child abuse".
. I personally can't see this at all.

Obviously Jamalu has shed light on how Jamalu makes decisions and that includes a very biased and obviously anti-male or misandrist attitude, as such I believe that any person reading any post from Jamalu has to take into consideration that Jamalu either cannot make sound decisions or alternately that by Jamalu's very own definition Jamalu's replies will be based upon and be
Jamalu said
"composed of gross falsehoods, severe gender discrimination, major intolerance and hatred and condones systemic child abuse".

Last edit: by MikeT

1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets