Threat to shared parenting

Changes to the definition of domestic violence may clog up the Family Court, a lawyer says.  Source: The Sunday Telegraph

PROPOSED changes to widen the definition of domestic violence will slash shared-parenting rights and flood the courts, a lawyer says.

Jane Miller, of Tindall Task Bentley Lawyers, said the Bill represented a "watering down" of the shared parenting reforms that were introduced by the federal Liberal party in 2006.

The laws would give the court greater power to decide which parent has custody. The court could also deny equal parenting rights to spouses who:

DENY their partner, or their children, the financial support and autonomy by controlling, dominating or coercing them unreasonably.

THREATEN to commit suicide or self-harm, with the intent of intimidating or tormenting their partner.

PREVENT their partner from making or keeping connections with their family, friends or culture.

"For the last five years we have enjoyed a period where it has been easier for both mum and dad to have a balanced custody arrangement for their children, but there is a possibility that these changes could make parenting more one-sided after separation," Ms Miller said.

She predicted the number of parents hauled before the court would also skyrocket if the law was passed.

"A quarter of our cases fit under the current definition (of domestic violence)," she said. " Under the new proposals, probably half would meet that definition."

"Children who do not witness the violence themselves, but are part of the victim getting medical treatment or are part of the clean-up, will be covered by these laws."

"The amendments place a greater emphasis on protecting children not just from physical violence, but also considering what they might have been exposed to or are aware of," Ms Miller said.

"It is already a concern that violence is a major factor in our daily relationship matters, and this is sure to open up many more." 

A recent report revealed around two-thirds of separated mothers and just over half of separated fathers reported their former partner had emotionally abused them before or during separation.

The proposals are being examined by the Federal Parliament with a vote on the Bill expected to be held in August.



Commentary by the Ottawa Mens Centre

Congratulations and thanks to Ken McGregor for his reporting of this story. The 2006 amendments were a glimmer of sanity in the cess pool world of family law. We need to look at the claims of abuse by 66% of mothers and 50% of fathers - Who litigate. Fact is women are better at psychological abuse than men, and at the end of the day, physical abuse is initiated more by women than men.

That means women believe, rightly believe that the courts will apply a Male Sharia Law and create evidential assumptions and conclusions that apply a reverse onus of proof upon men with the predictable result that women more often than not get custody.

Sane parents, who place their children first, nearly always agree to Equal Time Parenting, generally alternate weeks.

It's the parents with personality disorders and mental health problems who destroy marriages and who seek to treat children as golden geese and personal property.

For every destroyed father, there is a destroyed grandmother, aunts and sisters who generally never see the kids again.

Its time for every Australian Father to stand up and speak.


What this story does not reveal is how this is just the thin edge of the wedge, its the tip of an iceberg that will bring draconian changes, a war on men that most in Australia society are unable to comprehend.

To gain an idea, you need to look at Canada where any woman wanting to get rid of a father makes unsubstantiated claims of "fear", that result in "Apprehension of violence orders", aka Restraining Orders that banish fathers from entire cities, for life, and banish them from taking ANY, legal action what soever in the future to vary any order made.

Then you have the debtor's prisons, used to put fathers in jail so they can't see their kids. Often the first "sentence" is for SIX MONTHS JAIL, no time off for 'good behaviour', they fester in overcrowded gang controlled jails where its ten swarming one to move out a "whitey" and put in a gang member with a bum full of drugs.

Feminist lawyers fabricate evidence, alleging impossible high incomes to be used to determine "support" that is also spousal support even when she is rich and he is in poverty.

It's time for Australian fathers to stand up and fight this legislation.


Ariel at Justice for Children Australia is pure feminist propaganda. Jared of Adelaide put it in a nutshell, "The expanding of the definition of violence" include actions that no sane person would consider violent".

That's it, there is NO legal reasoning in these changes, there is a complete failure to balance the extreme fatal flawed delusional prejudice that these changes will bring.

What it shows is the propensity of politicians to join the War on Men for what they see is a similar drug like fix and boost in votes that is won by the "tough on crime" equally illogical doctrine.

Joe Rossi's assumptions and conclusions lack logical reasoning. First he assumes there was actually violence "before". Most of the time, those allegations are false and without any corroboration. The proposed "widening of the definition of violence" is a thinly veiled attempt to reintroduce Male Sharia Law that has as its premise, a reverse onus of proof upon the male father who is assumed to be guilty of what ever she says unless he can supply an impossible proof of a double negative that he did not do what she alleges.

What should "paramount" is some legal reasoning, that conforms to the principles of fundamental justice and equality.

The example of parents who don't litigate is overwhelmingly equal parenting and that legal assumption should continue to apply rather than start the thin edge of the wedge that will eventually result in the annihilation of father's rights.