Fathers and bias in the Family Court

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2010-03-26 13:19

Article here. Let's play the pedophile card when we run out of reasons to oppose shared custody. Excerpt:

'A recent decision by the Family Court of Australia suggests that it is out of touch with general community standards and reveals that the law needs further amendments.

A father who was charged and convicted of downloading child pornography has been granted weekend overnight access to his two young daughters. He was previously found guilty in a criminal court of downloading internet material that by its nature is produced from the actual abuse of children. Furthermore, he was found guilty of “reproducing” child exploitation material.

The judge ordered that during the weekend overnight contact, he must have a friend present in the house and that the children’s bedroom door needs to be locked at night. In the comments section to the news article about this decision, comment number 69 asks, “What is it about the Family Court that keeps doing this? This is NOT the first time it has happened. Why is the court giving sex offenders access to children?”
...

One indicator that their contentions are not true and that the Family Court does not have a bias against “fathers” is revealed by the simple fact that despite the use of the word “fathers” by the fathers’ rights campaigners, most separated fathers in Australia do not end in the Family Court. Their repeated use of the plural word “fathers” gives the false impression that they represent a great number of separated fathers in Australia. However, the Family Court statistics indicate that the number of cases that proceed to trial is about 5-6 per cent of the cases that actually present to the Family Court. That means that of all the couples that separate in Australia, 95-96 per cent do not end up in the Family Court. That also means that the accusations that the Family Court is biased against “fathers” in general cannot be accurate, especially when the claim is couched in terms that give the impression that the problem of fatherlessness in Australia is due to the Family Court.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

First, the author needs to stop her overuse of quotes around single words or around phrases that are not being quoted from a second party source. But that is an editorial criticism that people like me make, especially as I am guilty of it myself, so I notice it immediately.

That done... she actually makes some valid points in that there are men who should not get custody or visitation of their kids if they are shown to be unfit for the same. Inasmuch as she can produce examples, however, of men who are proven to be unfit (eg: men killing their own kids and themselves, men who are rightly convicted of crimes that endanger their kids, men who are unfit in other, clear ways, such as due to significant mental instabilities, etc.), FRAs can produce plenty of examples of women who can be readily shown to be unfit in the same ways as well, but who nonetheless get custody or visitation of children. The courts will never have a perfect track record of doling out rights and privileges once parents have shown an incapacity to work things out between one another. This is a major hazard both of marriage and modern life as reproductive choices also confer serious responsibilities that place individuals in danger of their liberties and livelihoods.

No wonder fewer and fewer people with IQs over a certain measure are not having kids. Just do the math.

That said, I differ with the author in that yes, there is an anti-father bias in these matters and one need only view the statistical assessments and read the important parts of case law pertaining to these matters (the Tender Years Doctrine, for example) to see quite clearly that it is there. But as long as nymphotropism exists, there will be those among us who refuse to see the whole side of things.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2010-03-26 18:19

If the trials are biased then the court is biased... In any case the fatherS that were wronged want the bias to be redressed for the obvious and since expected outcomes of trials effect the negotiations. That excerpt was just absurd.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by fondueguy on Fri, 2010-03-26 21:58