Stuff from Jim Bailey’s e-mail
After nearly 10 years of operation, some in the profession believe aspects of the implementation of the Domestic Violence Act 1995 (DVA) are ripe for review.
Calls for change as Domestic Violence Act turns 10
A 2004 UK study confirmed that children who have contact with their fathers following a family break-up suffer fewer behavioral problems than those who don’t have such contact.
Kids Need Contact with their Fathers
Children who have contact with their fathers following a family break-up suffer fewer behavioural problems, academics said today.
Youngsters who have a close relationship with their natural father after their parents split up are likely to be less disorderly, anxious or aggressive.
It’s not surprising to see who is defending the Domestic Violence Act:
And:
Of all the complaints received about anti-father lawyers by Men’s Centre North Shore, Ms Kearns name is one of the most frequently mentioned, as members will attest.
Comment by JohnP — Sat 3rd June 2006 @ 9:43 am
This evidence was produced long ago. The same facts and figures… And they are still being produced with the same results : Children who have contact with their fathers following a family break-up suffer fewer behavioural problems.
How many studies of this have to endure before our ‘Government’ realises that decimating families results in children with behaviourable problems, and therfore increasing the number of prisoners ?
Throw money at the problem – create more prisons, and give Womens refuge more money, to increase thier ability to put even more Men in jail.
Comment by Moose — Sun 4th June 2006 @ 11:25 pm
The feminazi hateful scum that admninister this country enjoy criminalizing dads as he usually puts up a considerable fight when falsely accussed of being a deadbeat dad. When he hears he was a sexual abuser and violent dad to his children he goes troppo and the sick hateful puss riden system deems him as deluded and psychotic and the funny thing was it all turned out to be false allegations however these people rather than punished are rewarded with permanent protection orders x 6 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!What else has he got to lose as his children are controlled by corrupt cops , lawyers , psychobabble freaks, and lying judges. The truth gots nothing to do with it, as this unlawful gender discrimination that suits the governments agenda and is a huge gravy train for the family court brothel .No access arrangements in place and this dad feels like King Hitting the repitile lesbian PM in the head !!!! F..k the consequences !!!!!!!!!
Comment by Peter Burns — Tue 6th June 2006 @ 10:26 am
There has been suggestion today on the father’s coalition demonstrations that Judge Boshier is constructing a family law view more in line with the Australian model. Those of us who are committed to constructing an effective change that better protects our children to their rights of association and freedom of movement will need to keep up with this development, most especially as the review pending on domestic violence should prove will be laced with Judges’ intent.
Reading the article for comment, however, runs more in line with how I would anticipate the judge to be truthfully positioning the change. It leads to a cynical consistency where the rules must be altered – so let’s do it cleverly so that we still have the control to direct the family unit to understand that violence is exactly as we say. Living without violence is their way through the tangle. Living without your children after a separation a notion alien: as alien as those many fathers already fallen victim to the judge, and brethren like kin, mind altering concoctions of blame, pennance and punishmnent.
“not enough men are attending the courses that will change their attitude to violence”.
I figure that Judge Jan Doogue has a better understanding, or at least if not a more liberal authority better to describe the truth. Men, and fathers particularly, are baring the burden of blame for a violent society and this for its exploitable convenience is a largely unjust and highly expensive presumption. Jim Bagnall on teh other hand has a more simple approach to the situation, and for the latter is more easy to define a necessary change. “Those who run the system are forced to feed the domestic violence industry”.
Yet the judge as we know already appears to hold the power. But does he? More importantly will he hold the power if his report does not accurately negotiate the past imbalances with justice that he has indicated on his own accord may exist.
The DVA 95 does not have a report on its introduction on how it breaches human rights. It must be our worst piece of legislation to breach human rights where it (apparently justifiably) limits our most fundamental freedom natural to man – that of parenting ones children. And on allegations alone.
I balk at the sameness reading the arguments of well paid lawyers running around in the same brainless circles of how women and children need to be better protected by increases of power or greater enforcing of the powers of the DVA. Around and around and around and around they go. All probably somewhere over $120.00 per hour. All probably important because they have a successful number of cases under their eloquent belts. A conviction is a justification. The more convictions and wins the greater the warrior and more credible to the systems skill.
What about a different system that doesn’t use judges and lawyers. Like: See you – no more wages exploiting our children thanks. We need people who can like us and want to help us work it out in an even and healthy, even if lengthy frame.
In yesterday’s Herald Stuart Cummings said that he was willing to talk with the protesters and had made this offer and that it was taken up. He was right. However, Andrew hasn’t progressed this further yet and the article beat us to the initiative. So we accept. I’ll get in touch with Stuart Cummings. Judge Boshier is under the impression that he can carry on with the gross Human Rights abuses of our nation’s children as if we are entitled as a country to tolerate domestic violence. As if the fathers of those children will be tolerant anymore of their children’s deprivation at the hands of an uncaring and child exploitative system. If he cannot fairly answer the allegations that are now being tabled about the family courts abuse then he is advised to recalculate the value he sees in parliamentary power to write just any old rule it thinks is closest to fit the peg.
You are welcome to draw your knives of sedition, I encourage you so to do. But before they leave your sheathes of justice I encourage you to calculate the number of years no notice has been taken of those children who want to see their dads and for some reason – Some unknown reason to them – That man – that primary male of their human essence – that core in their knowledge of everything meaning love: is beyond their access to know. And I say to any of you who are so intent that you’ll never own to control their love, yet the inheritance of their imparted hatred is owned forever to breath.
Benjamin Easton.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 11th June 2006 @ 8:02 pm