UK Family Law Reform

Free information index

----- Original Message -----
From: robertwhiston1@sky.com
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 12:28 PM
Subject: Shared Parenting

RE: In 2010/2011 the Australian government ordered six reviews and a Senate
Inquiry into the workings of the Family Law act. . . .."

Are these the reviews that were published 2010/2011 rather than commenced in
those years because I suspect they were actually commenced in 2006 when no
one knew how the Act would work out.

If so they point to a determination to disprove any progress and kill it off
before the results were in based on an ideological premise' not one of a
child best interests.

As for Jennifer McIntosh her sample size was so small as to be laughable.

If you turn to the statistics generated by the 2006 Act you will find
children better protected against a mother's mental instability and less
child abuse.

See http://sharedparenting.wordpress.com/
http://sharedparenting.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/1/
http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2011/12/16/34/

Norgrove and McIntosh's 'junk science'

http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/33/

1. If 'Shared Parenting' was the most commonly used means of reducing
/eliminating the need to pay Child Support for Australian fathers - and fair
- then Child Support amount should have fallen dramatically but it has not -
instead 12,500 have fled overseas under the old regime. Have 12,500 fled
overseas since under the new regime. Wonder why not ?

2. Shared Parenting' is not in children's best interests and can cause them
serious psychological harm, especially where one of the parents has violent,
narcissistic, and immature behaviours - but only in families which are
already having those immature problems beforehand (that's why they were in
the sample to start with, dummy).

3. If Shared Parenting' was not in children's best interests why have the
Scandinavians been so successful with this model of custody ?

4. The 'Tender Years' doctrine is a 19th century concept and closely allied
with the deep south and slavery. It may have worked for cotton pickers but
are we to seriously take this archaic model into the age of feminism and the
21st century ?

----- Original Message -----
From: jameswilliamsgb@aol.co.uk
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 12:30 AM
Subject: Shared Parenting

1) I would agree that it would not be in a child's best interest if one of the parents has a personality disorder and an abusive nature, but as it is mostly fathers who are excluded from a child's life and mothers who make up a high proportion of those with a disorder and harmful characteristics then the proportion of mothers having control over their children should not be as high as it currently is. The Tender Years theory does not address this and practitioners do little to stop their anti-father bias from influencing their decision to award custody to mothers to the exclusion of fathers.

2) I suspect there are a high proportion of pro-feminist people operating in this field of research. The motives and vested interests should be taken into account when being presented with their findings otherwise it could be a case of embracing a report in favour of smoking produced by the tobacco companies.

3) There is a grand association and implication that most of the fathers evading paying child support have a psychosis. Firstly, many 'psychotic conditions' are products of the psychiatric industry which has produced a disturbing lack of scientific evidence to prove the existence of any such conditions. Secondly, many of those fathers evading payments probably feel unjustly treated due to being required to pay without the guarantee of participating in their child's life. Most normal people resent paying for nothing. Thirdly, how is their evading payment (and as CP says many being overseas) evidence of trying to control their partners? This is as defunct a theory as the Deluth Model is in describing DV as being about power and control whilst ignoring all the other factors. There is an assumption in feminist circles that DV is one way , but often it there is mutual violence. Control of children by mothers is a very effective way of inflicting harm on men who do actually care very sincerely about their children. The effect of this emotional violence can be seen by the very high suicide rates of divorcing fathers.

4) There is well documented evidence including the proportion of the prison population, substance abusers etc. who have grown up without the presence of a father type role model. Forcing single parenting i.e. refuting shared parenting officially allows the denial of a father figure in many children's lives in the future and the subsequent damage that will bring.

5) "‘Shared Parenting’ is most commonly used as a means of reducing/eliminating the need to pay Child Support" this comment suggests a prejudicial attitude toward men as there is no counter balance to the statement about the problems that mothers cause such as the murder of children (twice as high as that of fathers) or the deaths of children in their care (1,000 in 10 years in the UK)

6) The comment about the the law being written by senior male members of the Family Law Judiciary is no evidence of no feminist involvement. Feminism is an ideology and not a demographic populous. There are many men who support and spout feminism. Charles Pragnell is probably one of them. He mentions they are 'senior'. I wonder how many of them have actually cared and raised a child themselves? Do they possess the belief from their own upbringing that children should be with their mothers? I have come across such people working in social services.

7) `Shared Parenting’ is not in children’s best interests' - he needs to learn to read properly. Dr. Macintosh said in high conflict relationships shared parenting may not be in the child's best interest. That is different than a statement of fact that CP has made which aims at dismissing shared parenting per se. There are many, many examples to show that shared parenting works in low conflict arrangements. It is the conflict that is the problem for the child through having to cope with two averse mediums.

----- Original Message -----
From: pragnellc@iprimus.com.au
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 9:28 PM
Subject: Shared Parenting

In 2010/2011 the Australian government ordered six reviews and a Senate Inquiry into the workings of the Family Law act and into `Shared Parenting’ in particular. Those reviews and studies (particularly the review led by Jennifer McIntosh) showed that `Shared Parenting’ is not in children’s best interests and can cause them serious psychological harm, especially where one of the parents has violent, narcissistic, and immature behaviours.

Such studies were provided to the UK government in recent months when a Working group studied the issues and recommended NOT introducing `Shared Parenting’.

‘Shared Parenting’ is most commonly used as a means of reducing/eliminating the need to pay Child Support [currently 250,000 Australian fathers (plus 12,500 who have fled overseas) are evading Child Support amounting to over A$2 BILLION], by psychotic parents seeking control their former partners and to continue to abuse, torture, and torment them, and by parents seeking to continue their abuse of their children (emotionally, psychologically, physically, and sexually). In this latter category are parents who seek contact/custody of their children in order to video-record their sexual abuse of their children in order to obtain considerable financial rewards on Internet Websites.

I’d suggest you read those studies and do some very considerable research before making your wild assertions, mere conjectures, and fanciful speculations.

The Tender Years theory has stood the test of time as being the natural and most healthy preference in the placement of children after parental separation and to be least damaging to children’s developmental needs.

Join us in campaigning for equality and justice.

http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/ukfamilylawreform/