Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Attacking fathers as a feminist tactic aimed at making it 'acceptable' for judiciary to exclude fathers

Agitation for parenting reform has become a prominent feature of family law policy debates in recent years.

Michael Flood is simply not a credible source. Nor are any of the rest of the McInnes cabal.

http://www.nccps.org.au/docs/Flood,%20'Fathers'%20rights'%20and%20defence%20of%20paternal%20authority.pdf

Go to onlineopinion.com.au and look up the user Chazp. That handle belongs to Charles Pragnell, but looks to have been taken over by one of the man-haters at the nccps, probably McInnes - the style is consistent and consistently hateful.

The real problem is not parents being unable to agree. My ex is not merely unable to come to an agreement she's unable to negotiate, she's unable to even talk without abjection from me, which she's got Buckleys of seeing. She tried for years to get more care of the kids and to reduce my time, all because she thought shLe could get more money. Despite that, we have a shared care arrangement even though we've not communicated meaningfully in years.

She does her best to be a PITA (making arrangements when I'm supposed to have the kids and not telling me, then making sure the kids aren't there to be picked up and that sort of silliness) but the kids are doing just fine. It would be easier if she was less mentally deranged, but that's the hand we've got. Under your proposal she'd have "won" by default simply through not cooperating, which is hardly a reasonable proposition. Unsurprisingly, it's the peg that McInnes et al want to hang their hat on, since they demand total maternal control.
I've already read that profeminist garbage from Flood. There is nothing objective about the article as he is biased in his views and is out to discredit fathers claims or so called fathers groups.

I'm not involved in Fathers rights groups and there is little need to be involved as the majority of Australians know what they suffer.

I asked you four questions:

What if parents cannot "assess what works and what does not work"?

Does this mean we go with a default decision and exclude one parent from their children?

Does this mean we then go onto demonise that parent by saying they are incapable of caring for their children or they are abusive?

What is wrong with the court trying to heal the rift between parents and get them to focus on their children by ordering parents to correct their abusive behaviour and use shared care as a tool to encourage parents to respect each other and become great parents to their children?
On the subject of 'Flood' - it has been noticed that his material is being used or quoted in family law courses for law students. These students also showed us their text books where Flood's commentary  is given a lot of space.

The reason the students wanted to talk about Flood was that they thought the topic of Family Law was taught from a pre-determined point of view. That is to say a biased one.

Family Law is the one topic where law students receive advice to the effect - shut up in class, put your head down, and deliver what the lecturer 'expects'. In all other areas of law, students are expected to be free thinking.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas. 
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets