Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Not Sexist?

Add Topic

a small challenge

With the greatest of respect I would like to issue a small challenge to the moderators who claim that this site is not sexist. Why do the "news" articles on this site promote the view that of the people involved in family law disputes, divorced mothers are predominantly lying and vindictive and should not be protected by the law should they wish to bring claims of abuse against their ex partners because clearly these are simply attempts to victimise their ex partners rather than any attempt to protect themselves and their children, and divorced fathers are predominantly innocent victims of the former who just want to spend a bit of quality time with their kids, never themselves abuse the legal system, and should be protected by the law from any accusations of wrongdoing?
I'm no moderator, but I'd suggest that what you observe is due to the desire of the site admins to challenge the entrenched position of activists that violence or other wrongdoing is the sole province of fathers. such a view is directly at odds with the evidence.

The News

Just looking at the main news items today
NSW Minister Pru Goward out of step with Child Support Agency

Minister Goward announced a new initiative which will require all authorised relative carers of children and young people in long term out-of-home-care for more than 12 months to apply to the Child Support Agency for a child support assessment. The parents of children who live with their grandparents or other family members will be compelled to pay child support in the same way as divorced parents under a new state government initiative. The Community Services Minister, Pr…

- All about child support and other carers / Grandparents - seems reasonably neutral

The "Underlying" Truth of the Family Law Bill 2011
Howard Beale has come out strongly against the reforms on Face book. The Senate report also omits the crucial fact from the testimony of the AG representative, Mrs Pirani, recorded in Hansard, that not one case of perjury, including self-admitted cases, referred to the AG department has been prosecuted or even investigated. This report based on testimonies stacked with every self-interest minority extremist crackpot group crying family violence wolf is so fundamentally fla…

- Came from a Facebook post and Howard Beale has been an advocate for both mums and Dads in his writings.

Labor Greens Creating a Fatherless Society
Dads4Kids Fatherhood Foundation press release: Never before in the history of the Parliament have major changes to Family Law been enacted on any other than bipartisan agreement between the major parties. This proposed legislation is opposed by the Opposition, and rightly so, because it removes the very wise friendly-parent provision, redefines family violence to mean anything anybody wants it to be, and removes any possible penalties for perjury and false accusation in th…

- This was a press release issued by Dads4Kids who are passionate about the issues. Very focussed on Christian and Marriage values.

Family Law Bill - How they voted
The Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 was further amended and passed with a very slim majority of four votes. Details are on the site both in News and Forum posts. A complex start date has been formulated in a table with different items starting at different times.

- I posted this to the news which was simply how the voting went this week.

Senate a disgrace passing Family Law Bill

In a fiery sitting cut short by a despicable Government's cancellation of any debate yesterday and forcing a vote on the papers the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 passed after amendments by the coalition and Greens were defeated, with minor amendments by the government agreed. Liberal senator Ian MacDonald had the fortitude to continue to interject asking for debate on the bill as well as senators to come to the house a

- This came from and I thought was again fairly gender neutral. I stand by my comments in this news story about complicity of some Government employees in taking children out of one parents life and now with immunities.

I suggest that the "perception" that the site has a flavoured view is because so many who are actually posting here, have not been able to participate in the relationship with their children or that they have had unresolved issues or disappointing results in their dealings with the CSA.

Unfortunately for the moderators there is a no win situation because there are a number of cases where there are lies told by both sides and I think the point some are making is in respect to teh removal of 117AB the mandatory costs orders.

The Family Law area is one of the only areas of law that parents can appear before a judicial officer and tell "porkies". The issue for many is that if they are proven false why are their now, no mandatory cost penalties. That is the issue and I don't think its just one side or the other.

The moderators generally validate posts regardless of the point of view and often let posts stand that require a robust response. Unfortunately the site does not have as many moderators as is required and most certainly if you have a particular post that is a problem let us know. If you are putting your hand up to do some moderation works we are always happy to look at that. I do not read every single post and therefore tend to read the more complex legal issue posts and am therefore less in tune with the site approach you are suggesting.

Just looking at the news items in general and the long list off the "news" page I think there are some interesting news items. The Ombudsman has done some good work around the CSA so its not all bashing one against the other. If you have a particular news item you would like posted please email us with details. Thanks for your post.


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
Guest said
…this site is not sexist…divorced mothers are predominantly lying and vindictive …and divorced fathers are predominantly innocent victims of the former who just want to spend a bit of quality time with their kids, never themselves abuse the legal system, and should be protected by the law from any accusations of wrongdoing?

The facts speak for themselves. Court mandated shared care arrangements have increased 3% to 17% of cases since the 2006 reform, the majority of which are 5 of 14 nights. If one considers real shared care as above 42% then court ordered shared parenting is about 6 in 100.

No reasonable person can accept that 94% of Australian fathers are unfit to share in the parenting of their own children. And it is about to get much worse.
for my 10 cents worth i found this site for information in a law world i dont know how to navigate in.

if you want your car fixed now your in my world….

ive found the site very good as ive been able to read what other parents are going thru

its not sexist or one sided but you might find that that carers that have majority care of their kids have the least amount of problems therefore they might be absent from this site. carers with minority care have all the scrutiny of the court system and CSA therefore might find themselves here like myself.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets