Family law disputes about who has care of and legal responsibility for children are known as Parenting matters. In parenting matters, the court makes parenting orders setting out who the children live with and who has parental responsibility for the children.
The Family Court has implemented a single justification, not limited by any point of law, not requiring points of proof allowing the court to decide, on a case by case basis, what is accepted as proof. The Family Court officials found they could sidestep traditional points of law to justify or substantiate any decision, decision process or group of decisions by claiming that decision was “In the Best Interests Of The Children”. Once that was established as their Catch-Cry, the family court all but eliminated ALL requirements like justice, fairness, balance, etc from decision making criterion. The Family Court has, and uses the ability to Set Aside legitimate, indisputable evidence supporting Men’s cases if it goes against a decision the court wants to make. I’ve never heard of that action impairing a female’s case.
With “In the Best Interests Of The Children” as their stated prime consideration, they remain free to favor women, completely unbound by any, Cultural, traditional Judicial or lawful requirements. Essentially, the Family Court is became an unbound Law Unto Itself.
The Family Court has laughably tried to over the last decade or two make itself appear both Gender unbiased and more Politically Correct (PC) updating their languaging and rewording all of their guides and documentation. I have no comprehension why they bothered. The most laughable is there pretense there’s a presumption of 50/50 custody. They’ve even changed that to 50/50 responsibility but their own definitions as well as statistics PROVE there is no intent of that whatsoever. What 50/50 responsibility means is Women Recieve/Men Pay
What is true is far less cases are actually being ruled by the FC judges. The FC system has now put more processes and procedures in place to individually inform men what the outcomes are going to be if they push for equality. Today, you can’t even get in front of the judge until you’ve been told “These are the rulings the judge will probably make” by teams of mandatory conciliation, mediators, then arbitrators. I have only ever met one male whe managed to get majority custody. His wife had been certified mentally ill and was regularly (forcibly) institutionalised with violent mental health issues. Even with proven child endangerment, she retained approx 35% unsupervised custody. Would a man get them at all in that scenario? I have never met a man with 50/50 custody regardless of how hard he fought. I have met scores (if not hundreds) of men who tried, myself included.
Any man who’s been dragged, kicking and screaming through this court or seriously tried to fight for justice, fairness or balance will spend years recovering from the frustration and anger after being so disillusioned at the impossibility of obtaining a Gender unbiased outcome.
All world experts worth their weight in Cocky Shit are speaking out about how crucial fathers are for the development of children. Anyone who thinks Fathering can be done on an every second weekend basis has absolutely no concept of how consistency compounds learning. This is what being a father is all about.
What Is Parental Responsibility?
Under Australian law, parental responsibility is what a lot of people think of as ‘custody.’ The person or persons who have parental responsibility is legally responsible for the children and making major decisions about their lives – such as what school they go to, what religion they are brought up with and any major medical interventions they receive.
Equal Shared Parental Responsibility
Under the Family Law Act, there is a rebuttable presumption that it is in the best interests of the child that the parents should have equal shared parental responsibility. This presumption is contained in section 61DA. However, this presumption does not apply if a parent has engaged in abuse of the child or of another child in the family or in family violence. The presumption can be rebutted with evidence that equal shared parental responsibility is not in the best interests of the child.
When making parenting arrangements, Australian family law requires the best interests of the children to be the paramount consideration. These matters are not about the parents’ rights to spend time with the children but rather the children’s right to spend time with parents if it is in their best interests. As a statement, I wholeheartedly agree, however when used as a thinly veiled justification to strip men of ANY and ALL decision making in the child’s upbringing, this is blatant Power Abuse. Men don’t just lose time to educate their children, men aren’t allowed to decide on anything from education, health, sporting activities, holiday times etc unless the mother WANTS the father to be part of it. Just like
There is now 50/50 responsibility which roughly translates as bracketed
there is a presumption that both parents will have an equal parental responsibility—that is, they will both have a role in making decisions about major long-term issues such as where a child goes to school (Mother decides, Father pays!) or major health issues. (Mother chooses treatments, enrolments, sports, hobbies, activities, courses etc. – Father pays!)
The presumption does not apply if the parent engaged in abuse of the child or family violence. (MOTHER ACCUSES RAPE, VIOLENCE, ABUSE, FEAR, GETS FALSE AVO – FATHER GETS LOCKED OUT AND PAYS MORE).
So why do you think these accusations and AVO hearings are so prevalent now, it takes 18 months – 2 years to even get a hearing?
Child Custody
In Australia, we’ve sweetened the language to the new PC version. Residence and Access
I’m certain most readers understand the percentages of separated families that share custody equally is less than 10%. Worse is the statistic showing women score 27% of Sole custody while men get 2%. One of the most telling statistics is 18% of men see their children in the daytime only, vs. 1% of women ensuring Total fiscal responsibility falling upon fathers even wanting their children. Neither myself nor any person I’ve discussed this with, have ever demonstrated a case where the father has major care without:
- VERY substantial Drug, Mental Health or Alcohol problems consistently demonstrated with copious quantities of irrefutable supporting evidence STRONGLY demonstrating the mother’s complete inability to care for the children.
- The mother doesn’t want the children
It’s strongly argued by the feminist groups Men simply don’t want the children and just Give Them Away. As a divorced father, I can tell you that is horse shit! The vast majority of responsible lawyers advise their male clients to accept far less because even in light of the supposed 50/50 parenting assumption, the over-riding decision factor is if that can be achieved without conflict therefore if the mother simply opposes 50/50 and throws in a few Bullshit unproven allegations, conflict is assured Almost by definition, Conflict means VICTORY for females, complete with all financial benefits.
If you can show me a female who doesn’t know this in Australia, I’ll show you a girl under 5. These specific laws and application thereof is exactly why Australia is one of the most highly prized targets for the entire world’s Mail Order brides. This is precisely why Australian men are so targeted for Romance scams.
Lawyers know and understand the mother gets what she wants regardless of the PC languaging the Family Court system has now adopted.
Court Instructs WOMEN how to win, usurping child control & finances.
By publishing guides like this (edited text below) women can PROVE shared care can’t work in their “Special” case.
When does shared parenting time appear to work well?2
The research suggests that such substantial sharing of parenting time after separation (roughly a third of time or more with each parent) works best when parents:
- Live reasonably close to the children’s other parent – JUST MOVE AWAY
- Can contain any negative feelings associated with their separation – both in the presence of the children and in the presence of the children’s other parent – START ARGUMENTS, IT DOESN’T MATTER WHO CAN’T
- Can resolve the inevitable disagreements and misunderstandings that crop up – for example, issues arising out of unexpected illnesses or other unplanned developments (such things occur in both “intact” and separated families but are more easily misinterpreted after separation) – DISAGREE ON ANYTHING OR EVERYTHING
- Can accept (even if it is not easy) that the other parent has a right to live his or her new life and that the children have a right to a meaningful relationship with that parent – DON’T ACCEPT EX’s NEW LIFE OR PARTNER
- Are neither menacing towards nor fearful of the other parent – CLAIM YOU FEAR ATTACK OR WORSE, ALLEDGE ONE
- Know that the children are basically “on board” with this form of shared parenting and can manage moving between two “home bases” – SAY THE CHILDREN ARE UPSET, UNSETTLED OR SAY CHILDREN DON’T WANT TO GO
Even the government advice states There is no rule that children must spend equal or “50:50” time with each parent.
50/50 My Arse!
If this GOVERNMENT statement doesn’t make ZERO EQUALITY OR EQUITY super clear, what does?
Shared parental responsibility is not the same as equal time. Parents will spend equal time with a child only where:
- they can agree to this arrangement – AGAIN, WIN BY JUST DISAGREEING, IT’S THAT EASY!
- or
- a court finds that equal time is in the best interests of the child and is the most suitable arrangement.
THE MONEY FLOWS WHERE THE KIDS SLEEP, When women fight for the kids, the complete understanding attached is the percentage of property division and the huge ongoing paycheck follows, hence the saying,
“KEEP THE KIDS, GET THE QUIDS!”
This is completely deliberate and is being perpetrated deliberately because the Feminist movement were instrumental in the establishment and setting up of the entire Family Court system.
TOP Experts are telling Government How insane Rewarding Evil is. Government ignores for Feminist demands.