spent on restaurants, takeaway food and convenience food has risen steadily.

The Sunday Times, additional reporting Caitlin Fitzsimmons

";"http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,7265338,00.html

A quiet revolution began two weeks ago in an upstairs room at a pub in

Lond"; "144";"fam";"Child Custody: Where Men Hit a Glass Ceiling";"http://intellectualconservative.com/page10";"2003-09-30";"By Rachel Alexander";;"A close look at child custody, examining how the courts and society's

Looking for more time with your children, shared parenting, fair property settlements, reasonable child support payments, protection against domestic violence and equality in all areas of life?
Check out what we can achieve together"; "145";"shd";"Right forms family lobby";"The Age (Melbourne)";"2003-09-22";"By Annabel Crabb";;"http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2003/09/21/1064082866149.htm

Forty-five conservative Coalition MPs have formed a new lobby group in

Parliament to pursue the interests of families, in what is being viewed in

some quarters as a resurrection of the controversial right-wing Lyons Forum

of the 1990s.

The group, which includes 12 ministers including Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin

and Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson, holds regular Monday night

meetings during sitting weeks and is working to counteract the perceived

dominance of the maternity leave issue in the nation's work and family debate.

Its convenor, NSW backbencher Alan Cadman, was a senior member of the Lyons

Forum, which lobbied heavily during the 1990s against abortion, pornography

and the recognition of gay relationships, but foundered at the end of the

decade.

Members of the new group believe the work and family debate has been

hijacked by arguments about maternity leave, largely because of spirited

advocacy by Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward.

“It's just an informal group - we're trying to get a few people in from

outside to help us look at policy and look at the future,” Mr Cadman told

The Age about the new group, which is referred to in correspondence as the

“Family Policy Group”.

“We're just looking at the whole thing; Pru Goward raised a number of

issues, but we need to examine the whole area.”

Mr Cadman denied the new group would be a resurrected form of the Lyons

Forum, which was named for the 1930s prime minister Joe Lyons and his wife,

Dame Enid.

Dame Enid managed to combine having 12 children with speaking out against

homosexuality and abortion and becoming the first female member of the

House of Representatives.

“That got off the rails a bit, I'm afraid,” Mr Cadman said of the Lyons Forum.

“Some of the members pushed it their own political way and most of those

people have gone; that's in the annals.”

Another leading Lyons Forum figure, Aged Care Minister Kevin Andrews, whose

private member's bill against euthanasia in 1996 was carried with strong

Lyons Forum support, said the new group was not designed to recreate the

hard lobbying style of the 1990s organisation.

Ministerial members of the new group include National Party frontbenchers

Mark Vaile and Larry Anthony, as well as Foreign Minister Alexander Downer,

Environment Minister David Kemp, Special Minister of State Eric Abetz,

Justice Minister Chris Ellison, Science Minister Peter McGauran and

Veterans Affairs Minister Danna Vale.

Victorian backbenchers Sophie Panopoulos, Stewart McArthur, Julian

McGauran, David Hawker and National Party MP John Forrest are also involved.

";"http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2003/09/21/1064082866149.htm

Forty-five conservative Coalition MPs have formed a new lobby group in

Parliament to"; "146";"dva";"Intervention orders 'being overused'";"The Age (Melbourne)";"2003-10-05";;;"http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/04/1064988455403.html

Intervention orders are being overused and are too easily breached, lawyers

and psychiatrists have claimed.

They say this has diluted their effectiveness, potentially putting victims

of stalking and domestic violence at greater risk.

The Law Institute of Victoria will try to set up a group with

Attorney-General Rob Hulls to look at changing the legislation to ensure

intervention orders are used properly.

Law Institute president Bill O'Shea said the effectiveness of intervention

orders had been reduced.

“They were introduced, really, to combat domestic violence, and they're now

being used in a whole range of civil disputes, which has the effect of

devaluing the significance of an intervention order,” he said.

Intervention orders were being taken out too often by feuding neighbours

and unions in dispute.

“Basically, the whole strength of an intervention order has been devalued

by the excessive use of it in less important areas,” he said.

Court figures show a 24 per cent increase in intervention orders in the

five years to 2000-01, and a 282 per cent increase in intervention orders

based on allegations of stalking.

One in four of those complaints involved stalking accusations between

neighbours.

Mr O'Shea said intervention orders could also lead to unnecessary criminal

convictions against people when orders were breached by feuding neighbours,

perhaps unintentionally.

He said criminal law should not be used to deal with feuding neighbours and

in cases where there were no threats of violence.

Michele Pathe, a director of the Stalking and Threat Management Centre,

said intervention orders were being used indiscriminately in stalking cases

without considering how appropriate they might be.

A spokesman for Mr Hulls said the Department of Justice was already looking

at intervention orders and where they were applied.

He said the Government realised much of the increase was due to disputes

between neighbours, which could be resolved in other ways.

";"http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/04/1064988455403.html

Intervention orders are being overused and are too easily breached, lawyers

and psychiatrist"; "147";"JOI";"Family Court chief lambasts PM's plan for shared custody";"CCH Newsletter";"2003-10-10";"Sharon Labi, content provided by AAP";;"Family Court chief lambasts PM's plan for shared custody

[MRA Note: After reading the comments made by Chief Justice Alastair Nicholson I believe any legislative changes proposed by the government towards attaining a 50/50 rebutable presumption of shared residency will have little chance of success in the Family Court of Australia under the present regime.]

CANBERRA, Oct 10 AAP - The head of the Family Court today lambasted the prime minister's proposal for shared custody of children from broken homes, saying it would never work.

Chief Justice Alastair Nicholson was scornful of any suggestion the Family Law Act be changed to presume divorced parents receive equal access to their children.

He said the plan did not reflect the reality of Australian life and was unworkable.

Giving evidence to a parliamentary committee on child custody, Justice Nicholson said the court had to assess each case individually and rule in the best interest of the child.

Prime Minister John Howard earlier this year flagged changes so the Family Court would presume both parents had equal and shared custody of children after a divorce.

It would then be up to the parents to argue in the Family Court why they should have more access.

The inquiry is examining the proposal and the circumstances for rejecting equal access.

But Justice Nicholson said the presumption of shared access would pose major difficulties.

“You're saying that there's a legislative expectation that these children will be shared equally and that just isn't the reality of Australian homes, it just isn't the reality of life at the moment,” he told the inquiry.

“I think it's so inappropriate to most Australian families that it's just not going to work and I think it's so inappropriate to most Australian children to say to them ... there's a presumption that you've got to spend equal time with your father and mother.”

Justice Nicholson said the key in such cases was the quality of relationship between parent and child and not the quantity of time spent together.

The presumption of shared custody could be quite unsettling for children and posed major difficulties in cases where children were conceived through IVF using donor sperm or eggs or through rape.

“It just doesn't seem to me to be a realistic concept,” Justice Nicholson said.

Some fathers chose not to have contact with their children or did not show up when they had access on weekends, having to be persuaded by court counsellors to maintain contact with their child.

The Family Court said it would abide by whatever the parliament eventually determined.

The inquiry also heard the system could be less adversarial and the court was considering a pilot program to allow judges to eliminate irrelevant information and rule on cases more quickly, as long as all parties consented.

Any suggestion juries should be introduced to the family court system was appalling, Justice Nicholson said.

";"Family Court chief lambasts PM's plan for shared custody

[MRA Note: After reading the comments made by Chief Justice Alastair Nicholson I believe any legislative changes proposed by the government towards attaining a 50/50 rebutable pre"; "148";"you";"A Cacophony of Errors";"MRA website";"2003-10-10";"A supportive partner";;"We would like to bring you a series of life experiences from people who have struggled through our pitiful family law system. Some have emerged the otherside a little worse for wear; others devastated - their lives destroyed because they lost their children and some who didn't make it through.

We'd like to bring you the full stories, with names as well. These people are crying out for recognition of the wrongs that have been imposed on them and their children just because their marriage/relationship did not work out.

But we cannot. S121 of the Family Law Act prevents identification of the parties.

The following article is written by a very supportive partner. The man in her life was subjected to horrific violence and abuse from the mother and the mother's family. His children are still facing the abuse.

Who is Caring for the Children?

Should I seek to entertain you with our story, chapter and verse, a novel

would be required to explain our plight.

Instead I offer a precise which raises so many questions, not the least of

which is “Who IS caring for the children?”

I have lived through two failed marriages, each of which producing one of my

two beautiful children. Yet, putting aside all differences, resentments and

anguish, the wellbeing of my children has always been the first priority for

both their fathers and myself. Infighting is taboo, as are malicious

behaviours, frivolous financial claims and any competition for affections.

No party is denied contact at any time, care is provided on an entirely

equal basis and decisions are dual. All of this in the best interests of

those who matter most, the children.

Eight years ago my second husband fought his ex-wife for access to his only

child and $20,000 and much trauma later he gained exactly what I had agreed

on civilly with the father of my first child. Sadly the courts were

required to reach such an agreement and the effects live on in the child to

this day. The trauma and accusations I suffered myself I cannot easily

forget.

There came a time when I met David, the most gentle man suffering unbridled

grief at the loss of his own four children and diagnosed with a psychiatric

illness which he did not have. Over time and after much encouragement we

sought professional assessment of David's condition so that he may gain some

effective treatment, heretofore not given.

And this is what we found,

David suffers from a condition known as post-traumatic-stress-disorder along

with depression. The cause of his disorder is clearly noted by his renowned

psychiatrist as “a direct result of prolonged and intense abuse of both

himself and his children suffered during his marriage on the part of his

wife”.

“What?” I hear you ask. “Don't men inflict domestic violence on their

wives, aren't they the ones who bash, threaten, stalk, manipulate and

cheat”.

For this is what you have always heard, over and over, that the man commits

acts of violence on his spouse and progeny. That he is aggressive and

threatening. That he is to be feared. That his children must be protected

against him.

For so long this viewpoint has formed the basis of our societal beliefs. And

consequently the generalisation has done so much harm.

Granted, we hear reports that family courts are becoming more balanced in

their views and decisions, more able to listen to all parties, less likely

to designate an automatic belief to the custodial parent, primarily the

mother. But all admissions point to the fact that the transition is slow

and many more years must pass before we are able to view the rights of both

parents to be heard equally. And in the meantime who is looking after the

children?

For it needs to be clearly understood now and forever, that women do abuse

men, that they can be violent, unstable, malicious and working on an agenda

which does not fit within the sanctity or the doctrines of marriage.

This is the story the world needs to hear, if they are to understand why men

run with their children, why stories of murder/suicide involving fathers and

children are really so horrifying and how cruelly a mother can push a father

even after the marriage is over and the parties separate.

The man whom I love, the man with whom I live, is suffering a trauma

equitable to that of the death of his children. The silence around him is

deafening, the grief tangible and overwhelming, the fears are intense.

Flashbacks and nightmares are just a part of life now. When and if they will

abate is so dependent on the faceless authorities, their decisions and their

knowledge of a situation they cannot pretend to understand.

Twelve years ago David married a woman from Europe. Only now and years later,

with the benefits of hindsight and distance, is he able to see her true

purpose in the marriage and the puppetry she used to ensure that his part

was played with no risk to her game plan.

Her own admission stands that she sought only the children out of the

marriage, an assurance that all children would have the one father, and that

she would give an appearance of normality to the community, a poor mother of

four, deserted by an uncaring and irresponsible father.

I tell you now, that this father deserted no one. For ten years he

tolerated what he did for the sake of his children and his unscathed belief

in the sanctity of marriage and family. Both the mother and her family

issued uncounted threats to David over the years, about infidelity, respect

of their coven, and always with a stark reminder of their heritage and their

affiliations, they reminded him that leaving his wife would result in a man

hunt culminating in the death of this devoted father.

This family, which claims to be closely knit and supportive, were no more

reassuring to David than the wife. Family dynamics were violent to say the

least. The sisters and the mother would daily engage in vicious

argument, backstabbing was rife and physical public street fights between

the women were a frequent occurrence. This occurred in front of the

children of the siblings who received no reassurance or explanation and who

came to believe that such behaviour was normal and acceptable.

The patriarchal brother gave the appearance and demeanour of a mafia style

street thug. He issued the most direct threats and demanded that the family

follow his directions to the letter. In an archaic fashion he claimed power

of attorney over his own mother, his siblings and their respective husbands.

All family decisions were to be channelled through him and depended upon his

approval. His sisters' husbands were thus emasculated without their own

knowledge, as the power of the brother was never disclosed before marriage

had occurred. In demanding his rights as a husband to make individual

choices in cohesion with his wife David found himself duly advised and

threatened in a manner designed to ensure that he never again questioned the

'family way'.

For ten years he watched as his wife tore relentlessly at the fabric of his

marriage, his children's esteem and indeed his own sanity. Five children she

lost as a result of self-abuse and yet the blame she squarely placed on him.

As with all other blames.

The children were ill from her foul hygiene, malnourished, developmentally

challenged, fearful of her temper, resistive of her mad assertions and

acting out her ways. They withdrew from normal social behaviours and took on

the dysfunctional miens of their mother in their interactions with others.

Should the father seek to provide care for his children the mother's

response was immediate and histrionic. She asserted that these children

were hers and hers alone, that no other would care for them and that only

she was capable of providing their needs.

She sought out medical illnesses in books and magazines and she deigned them

upon the children and herself. She claimed herself to be a victim of cancer

as a means of denying her husband the freedom to pursue his career. If the

children fell she reverted to hysteria creating panic and trauma where none

existed. She sought constant medical attention for both them and herself,

refusing medical advice and shopping the medical profession until she

obtained the edification she sought. Now she could claim more pity.

To this day her use of the Medicare system is so intense that her behaviours

raise eyebrows amongst the authorities and even her family disbelieves her

claims.

She dressed herself as a pauper, she begged pity from every person she met,

laughing hysterically, eyes wild, movements fluttery and mad, feigning

innocent gentility and reverting unpredictably to vile aggression and then

back again.

She regularly sought the advice of clairvoyants and lived in deep and

relentless superstition. On meeting her, and before she spoke or acted, a

renowned clairvoyant withdrew from her in terror, proclaiming her a black

witch and warning DAvid to take care for she would seek to destroy him.

He felt shame, embarrassment and disgust for what he thought she had become

but she was always this thing. Her family had known it and taken great pains

to hide her afflictions in an effort to shift the burden of her to another,

to give her what she wanted so that they would not carry her illness

eternally.

If David fought, if he struggled, the ropes would tighten and the situation

become even more intolerable. So too for his children.

From the moment of his marriage his career fell into ruins. His mates warned

him that she was mad and told her so. They begged him to leave; fearing he

would die his distress was so great.

As a member of the Armed Services for fourteen years and awaiting promotion he

quickly fell from grace. His barracks received 20 calls a day from his

wife, first desperate pleas for him to come home, to help her through her

daily trials. After the children were born she called his seniors with

accusations of molestation and abuse.

Advised he was, over and over, to have her cease her harassment, watched to determine how he was coping, warned he was, to choose the end of

his marriage or of his career. He chose his marriage.

The pressure increased. He became distressed. He required medication and

care. His career ended. She isolated him from peers and family.

She told the children ad nauseum that their father did not love them and

that he would soon go away forever.

The torture continued. The abuse, the torment, the fear increased. Now he

knew that he would die at her hands whether by design or intent. His heart

could not bear this.

And so he left, destitute and depressed. Unfit to work. Unfit to pick up the

pieces, he moved two and half thousand kilometres from his children, in fear

for his life.

She promptly moved the children from their home and sought to hide their

locations. This he did not discover until fourteen months later.

Three months hence she forwarded him a letter demanding that he forget his

children, that he send no gifts or money, and that he move on with his life.

She indicated clearly “if you do this you and your family will not be

harmed”.

She issued a domestic violence order 4 months after his departure barring

him from any contact with his children citing violence and abuse.

At 5 months she barred him from calling the children's schools.

At months six, seven, eight, nine and ten she attended the local police

station accusing him of breaching the orders, demanding that he be

imprisoned. The police told her to pull in her head and get on with her

life. They knew she was lying, they suspected she was mad.

All gifts, all letters he sent to his children were returned and marked “Not

at this address” in her hand.

DAvid had isolated himself for 14 months, too afraid to walk outside of his

door, too afraid to sleep in his bedroom, clinging desperately to his sanity

but beginning to believe his wife's assertion that this she had taken from

him too.

This is how I found this man. His self-esteem shattered, his fear of

strangers intense, his trust in the world defunct. His desire to live

depleted.

For months, with the assistance of family and friends we worked with him to

try to build up his confidence, in himself and others, and in his ability to

move on with life.

We sought psychiatric advice and his condition was rediagnosed and

appropriate treatment commenced. Counselling assisted him in managing his

condition and the improvement, whilst slow, was reassuring. His insight and

self-awareness was noted as being exceptional. But the fears and the grief

remained.

Every night, every day, he cries for his children. His fear for them is

intense. He knows well that the dysfunctional child rearing beliefs of

their mother will only do them great long term harm.

Feeling defenceless to save them from the aggressive norms of the mother's

family we sought the assistance of the Family Court of Australia to gain

legal recourse and access to them.

And this is what we found.

As the children have been in her care since the breakdown of the marriage

the father's rights are diminished so as to be almost non-existent despite

the fact that his exclusion may well not have been his own fault.

Because the mother has the children in her custody in another state all

hearings will take place in that state at the great expense to the father.

Processes within the Family Court are drawn out thereby increasing costs.

The cost of such a case is likely to run into the tens of thousands of

dollars and take several years to complete.

The only way in which this father may gain custody of his children is to

prove the mother unfit, a nearly impossible task. The burden on the mother

is to simply deny all claims of the father.

It seems that provided that the children are fed, clothed and housed the

quality of their care and the environmental aspects and capacity of the

parent becomes primarily irrelevant.

David may not claim Legal Aid assistance due to the income of his partner who

also has commitments to meet, children to care for and debts to service.

Although his income is a measly $480 per month (grossly below the poverty

line) from a Services Disability Pension and he receives no Social Security

benefits, David is indebted to pay legal fees and expenses that would take

him 15 years to service even if he did not have any other financial

responsibilities including rent and food.

Family Court Specialist Lawyers indicate that they have seen many like

cases, particularly with a woman of this nationality, where no matter

what orders the court issues, the mother simply refuses to comply. The

father is thereby forced to either give up on his children or spend tens of

thousands more dollars pursing the matter.

Even then it is clearly admitted that the Family Court is reluctant if not

unable to enforce the orders that they have made.

This seems a farcical state of affairs to me where the incapacity of the

Family Court destroys its own credibility and acts simply as a service which

channels community money into the legal profession whilst it feeds

voraciously on the human suffering of the most vulnerable members of

society, the children.

My questions are these:

* When will society come to realise that domestic violence

against husbands is not at all uncommon?

* When will society understand that a father can suffer as

intensely as a mother separated from her children?

* When will men cease to be discriminated against on the basis

of their gender?

* Who will compensate the children for the loss of time and

achievements shared with a loving parent?

* Who will compensate the father, the grandparents, the

cousins and aunts and uncles for the irreplaceable loss of those times with

his children, for the lack of photographs, memories and experiences?

* Who will compensate the partner who worked two jobs for 25

years to gain a home and will lose this because one mother decides to be

malicious and unreasonable with respect to her children?

* Who truly helps the fathers who do not have partners to

assist them financially to survive and to fight for their children? Who pays

for their years of treatment and $150 per month in medication? What happens

to them if no one does?

* Who assists the fathers to recover from the trauma and go on

to live a functional and fulfilling life without their children for whom

they have lived for years?

* Who will protect this mother's future partners from her

behaviours if she does not receive help for herself?

* Who will provide adequate help to the children to recover

from the damages of such a situation and at what cost? Will the children

ever recover?

* How can the children recover if they are subjected to the

situation without reprieve? What sort of citizens will they ultimately

become?

* WHO in God's name IS looking after the children?

";"We would like to bring you a series of life experiences from people who have struggled through our pitiful family law system. Some have emerged the otherside a little worse for wear; others devastated - their lives destroyed because they lost their childr"; "149";"you";"A Cacophony of Errors";"MRA website";"2003-10-10";"A supportive partner";;"We would like to bring you a series of life experiences from people who have struggled through our pitiful family law system. Some have emerged the otherside a little worse for wear; others devastated - their lives destroyed because they lost their children and some who didn't make it through.

We'd like to bring you the full stories, with names as well. These people are crying out for recognition of the wrongs that have been imposed on them and their children just because their marriage/relationship did not work out.

But we cannot. S121 of the Family Law Act prevents identification of the parties.

The following article is written by a very supportive partner. The man in her life was subjected to horrific violence and abuse from the mother and the mother's family. His children are still facing the abuse.

Who is Caring for the Children?

Should I seek to entertain you with our story, chapter and verse, a novel

would be required to explain our plight.

Instead I offer a precis which raises so many questions, not the least of

which is “Who IS caring for the children?”

I have lived through two failed marriages, each of which producing one of my

two beautiful children. Yet, putting aside all differences, resentments and

anguish, the wellbeing of my children has always been the first priority for

both their fathers and myself. Infighting is taboo, as are malicious

behaviours, frivolous financial claims and any competition for affections.

No party is denied contact at any time, care is provided on an entirely

equal basis and decisions are dual. All of this in the best interests of

those who matter most, the children.

Eight years ago my second husband fought his ex-wife for access to his only

child and $20,000 and much trauma later he gained exactly what I had agreed

on civilly with the father of my first child. Sadly the courts were

required to reach such an agreement and the effects live on in the child to

this day. The trauma and accusations I suffered myself I cannot easily

forget.

There came a time when I met David, the most gentle man suffering unbridled

grief at the loss of his own four children and diagnosed with a psychiatric

illness which he did not have. Over time and after much encouragement we

sought professional assessment of David's condition so that he may gain some

effective treatment, heretofore not given.

And this is what we found,

David suffers from a condition known as post-traumatic-stress-disorder along

with depression. The cause of his disorder is clearly noted by his renowned

psychiatrist as “a direct result of prolonged and intense abuse of both

himself and his children suffered during his marriage on the part of his

wife”.

“What?” I hear you ask. “Don't men inflict domestic violence on their

wives, aren't they the ones who bash, threaten, stalk, manipulate and

cheat”.

For this is what you have always heard, over and over, that the man commits

acts of violence on his spouse and progeny. That he is aggressive and

threatening. That he is to be feared. That his children must be protected

against him.

For so long this viewpoint has formed the basis of our societal beliefs. And

consequently the generalisation has done so much harm.

Granted, we hear reports that family courts are becoming more balanced in

their views and decisions, more able to listen to all parties, less likely

to designate an automatic belief to the custodial parent, primarily the

mother. But all admissions point to the fact that the transition is slow

and many more years must pass before we are able to view the rights of both

parents to be heard equally. And in the meantime who is looking after the

children?

For it needs to be clearly understood now and forever, that women do abuse

men, that they can be violent, unstable, malicious and working on an agenda

which does not fit within the sanctity or the doctrines of marriage.

This is the story the world needs to hear, if they are to understand why men

run with their children, why stories of murder/suicide involving fathers and

children are really so horrifying and how cruelly a mother can push a father

even after the marriage is over and the parties separate.

The man whom I love, the man with whom I live, is suffering a trauma

equitable to that of the death of his children. The silence around him is

deafening, the grief tangible and overwhelming, the fears are intense.

Flashbacks and nightmares are just a part of life now. When and if they will

abate is so dependent on the faceless authorities, their decisions and their

knowledge of a situation they cannot pretend to understand.

Twelve years ago David married a woman from overseas. Only now and years later,

with the benefits of hindsight and distance, is he able to see her true

purpose in the marriage and the puppetry she used to ensure that his part

was played with no risk to her game plan.

Her own admission stands that she sought only the children out of the

marriage, an assurance that all children would have the one father, and that

she would give an appearance of normality to the community, a poor mother of

four, deserted by an uncaring and irresponsible father.

I tell you now, that this father deserted no one. For ten years he

tolerated what he did for the sake of his children and his unscathed belief

in the sanctity of marriage and family. Both the mother and her family

issued uncounted threats to David over the years, about infidelity, respect

of their coven, and always with a stark reminder of their heritage and their

affiliations, they reminded him that leaving his wife would result in a man

hunt culminating in the death of this devoted father.

This family, which claims to be closely knit and supportive, were no more

reassuring to David than the wife. Family dynamics were violent to say the

least. The sisters and the mother would daily engage in vicious

argument, backstabbing was rife and physical public street fights between

the women were a frequent occurrence. This occurred in front of the

children of the siblings who received no reassurance or explanation and who

came to believe that such behaviour was normal and acceptable.

The patriarchal brother gave the appearance and demeanour of a mafia style

street thug. He issued the most direct threats and demanded that the family

follow his directions to the letter. In an archaic fashion he claimed power

of attorney over his own mother, his siblings and their respective husbands.

All family decisions were to be channelled through him and depended upon his

approval. His sisters' husbands were thus emasculated without their own

knowledge, as the power of the brother was never disclosed before marriage

had occurred. In demanding his rights as a husband to make individual

choices in cohesion with his wife David found himself duly advised and

threatened in a manner designed to ensure that he never again questioned the

'family way'.

For ten years he watched as his wife tore relentlessly at the fabric of his

marriage, his children's esteem and indeed his own sanity. Five children she

lost as a result of self-abuse and yet the blame she squarely placed on him.

As with all other blames.

The children were ill from her foul hygiene, malnourished, developmentally

challenged, fearful of her temper, resistive of her mad assertions and

acting out her ways. They withdrew from normal social behaviours and took on

the dysfunctional miens of their mother in their interactions with others.

Should the father seek to provide care for his children the mother's

response was immediate and histrionic. She asserted that these children

were hers and hers alone, that no other would care for them and that only

she was capable of providing their needs.

She sought out medical illnesses in books and magazines and she deigned them

upon the children and herself. She claimed herself to be a victim of cancer

as a means of denying her husband the freedom to pursue his career. If the

children fell she reverted to hysteria creating panic and trauma where none

existed. She sought constant medical attention for both them and herself,

refusing medical advice and shopping the medical profession until she

obtained the edification she sought. Now she could claim more pity.

To this day her use of the Medicare system is so intense that her behaviours

raise eyebrows amongst the authorities and even her family disbelieves her

claims.

She dressed herself as a pauper, she begged pity from every person she met,

laughing hysterically, eyes wild, movements fluttery and mad, feigning

innocent gentility and reverting unpredictably to vile aggression and then

back again.

She regularly sought the advice of clairvoyants and lived in deep and

relentless superstition. On meeting her, and before she spoke or acted, a

renowned clairvoyant withdrew from her in terror, proclaiming her a black

witch and warning DAvid to take care for she would seek to destroy him.

He felt shame, embarrassment and disgust for what he thought she had become

but she was always this thing. Her family had known it and taken great pains

to hide her afflictions in an effort to shift the burden of her to another,

to give her what she wanted so that they would not carry her illness

eternally.

If David fought, if he struggled, the ropes would tighten and the situation

become even more intolerable. So too for his children.

From the moment of his marriage his career fell into ruins. His mates warned

him that she was mad and told her so. They begged him to leave; fearing he

would die his distress was so great.

As a member of the Armed Services for fourteen years and awaiting promotion he

quickly fell from grace. His barracks received 20 calls a day from his

wife, first desperate pleas for him to come home, to help her through her

daily trials. After the children were born she called his seniors with

accusations of molestation and abuse.

Advised he was, over and over, to have her cease her harassment, watched to determine how he was coping, warned he was, to choose the end of

his marriage or of his career. He chose his marriage.

The pressure increased. He became distressed. He required medication and

care. His career ended. She isolated him from peers and family.

She told the children ad nauseum that their father did not love them and

that he would soon go away forever.

The torture continued. The abuse, the torment, the fear increased. Now he

knew that he would die at her hands whether by design or intent. His heart

could not bear this.

And so he left, destitute and depressed. Unfit to work. Unfit to pick up the

pieces, he moved two and half thousand kilometres from his children, in fear

for his life.

She promptly moved the children from their home and sought to hide their

locations. This he did not discover until fourteen months later.

Three months hence she forwarded him a letter demanding that he forget his

children, that he send no gifts or money, and that he move on with his life.

She indicated clearly “if you do this you and your family will not be

harmed”.

She issued a domestic violence order 4 months after his departure barring

him from any contact with his children citing violence and abuse.

At 5 months she barred him from calling the children's schools.

At months six, seven, eight, nine and ten she attended the local police

station accusing him of breaching the orders, demanding that he be

imprisoned. The police told her to pull in her head and get on with her

life. They knew she was lying, they suspected she was mad.

All gifts, all letters he sent to his children were returned and marked “Not

at this address” in her hand.

David had isolated himself for 14 months, too afraid to walk outside of his

door, too afraid to sleep in his bedroom, clinging desperately to his sanity

but beginning to believe his wife's assertion that this she had taken from

him too.

This is how I found this man. His self-esteem shattered, his fear of

strangers intense, his trust in the world defunct. His desire to live

depleted.

For months, with the assistance of family and friends we worked with him to

try to build up his confidence, in himself and others, and in his ability to

move on with life.

We sought psychiatric advice and his condition was rediagnosed and

appropriate treatment commenced. Counselling assisted him in managing his

condition and the improvement, whilst slow, was reassuring. His insight and

self-awareness was noted as being exceptional. But the fears and the grief

remained.

Every night, every day, he cries for his children. His fear for them is

intense. He knows well that the dysfunctional child rearing beliefs of

their mother will only do them great long term harm.

Feeling defenceless to save them from the aggressive norms of the mother's

family we sought the assistance of the Family Court of Australia to gain

legal recourse and access to them.

And this is what we found.

As the children have been in her care since the breakdown of the marriage

the father's rights are diminished so as to be almost non-existent despite

the fact that his exclusion may well not have been his own fault.

Because the mother has the children in her custody in another state all

hearings will take place in that state at the great expense to the father.

Processes within the Family Court are drawn out thereby increasing costs.

The cost of such a case is likely to run into the tens of thousands of

dollars and take several years to complete.

The only way in which this father may gain custody of his children is to

prove the mother unfit, a nearly impossible task. The burden on the mother

is to simply deny all claims of the father.

It seems that provided that the children are fed, clothed and housed the

quality of their care and the environmental aspects and capacity of the

parent becomes primarily irrelevant.

David may not claim Legal Aid assistance due to the income of his partner who

also has commitments to meet, children to care for and debts to service.

Although his income is a measly $480 per month (grossly below the poverty

line) from a Services Disability Pension and he receives no Social Security

benefits, David is indebted to pay legal fees and expenses that would take

him 15 years to service even if he did not have any other financial

responsibilities including rent and food.

Family Court Specialist Lawyers indicate that they have seen many like

cases, particularly with a woman of this nationality, where no matter

what orders the court issues, the mother simply refuses to comply. The

father is thereby forced to either give up on his children or spend tens of

thousands more dollars pursing the matter.

Even then it is clearly admitted that the Family Court is reluctant if not

unable to enforce the orders that they have made.

This seems a farcical state of affairs to me where the incapacity of the

Family Court destroys its own credibility and acts simply as a service which

channels community money into the legal profession whilst it feeds

voraciously on the human suffering of the most vulnerable members of

society, the children.

My questions are these:

* When will society come to realise that domestic violence

against husbands is not at all uncommon?

* When will society understand that a father can suffer as

intensely as a mother separated from her children?

* When will men cease to be discriminated against on the basis

of their gender?

* Who will compensate the children for the loss of time and

achievements shared with a loving parent?

* Who will compensate the father, the grandparents, the

cousins and aunts and uncles for the irreplaceable loss of those times with

his children, for the lack of photographs, memories and experiences?

* Who will compensate the partner who worked two jobs for 25

years to gain a home and will lose this because one mother decides to be

malicious and unreasonable with respect to her children?

* Who truly helps the fathers who do not have partners to

assist them financially to survive and to fight for their children? Who pays

for their years of treatment and $150 per month in medication? What happens

to them if no one does?

* Who assists the fathers to recover from the trauma and go on

to live a functional and fulfilling life without their children for whom

they have lived for years?

* Who will protect this mother's future partners from her

behaviours if she does not receive help for herself?

* Who will provide adequate help to the children to recover

from the damages of such a situation and at what cost? Will the children

ever recover?

* How can the children recover if they are subjected to the

situation without reprieve? What sort of citizens will they ultimately

become?

* WHO in God's name IS looking after the children?

";"We would like to bring you a series of life experiences from people who have struggled through our pitiful family law system. Some have emerged the otherside a little worse for wear; others devastated - their lives destroyed because they lost their childr"; "150";"JOI";"Public Hearings - Joint Custody 50/50 Inquiry";"Parliament House website, Canberra";"2003-10-15";;;"http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/fca/childcustody/hearings.htm

Forthcoming and past dates. Hansard transcripts are available for all hearings prior to October 10.

Date, Time and Details of Hearings and Community Statements Location Transcript Availability

Monday 27 October 2003 (PM)

2:00pm - 5:30pm Auditorium, Gunnedah Services & Bowling Club, 313 Conadilly Street, Gunnedah

Monday 27 October 2003 (AM)

8:30am - 11:30am Southern Cross University, Coffs Harbour Education Campus, Block A, Level One, Room 9/11, Hogbin Drive, Coffs Harbour

Sunday 26 October 2003

10:00am - 2:30pm Wyong Council Chambers, Function Room, Hely Street, Wyong

Monday 20 October 2003

9:30am - 6:30pm House of Representatives Committee Room 2R1, Parliament House, Canberra

Friday 17 October 2003

8:30am - 1:00pm Main Committee Room, Parliament House, Canberra

Monday 13 October 2003

8:30am - 12:35pm Main Committee Room, Parliament House, Canberra

Friday 10 October 2003

9:00am - 11:00am House of Representatives Committee Room 2R1, Parliament House, Canberra

Friday 26 September 2003

8:30am - 2:15pm Jacaranda Room, Joondalup Resort, Joondalup (Perth), WA

Proof PDF 677KB

Thursday 25 September 2003

9:00am - 1:00pm Litchfield Room, Parliament House, Darwin, NT

Proof PDF 375KB

Wednesday 24 September 2003

9:00am - 4:00pm Sunset Ballroom, Sfera's on the Park, 191 Reservoir Rd, Modbury,(Adelaide) SA

Proof PDF 609KB

Monday 15 September 2003

8:30am - 12:30pm Committee Room 2R2, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT

Proof PDF 439KB

Friday 5 September 2003

9:00am - 1:00pm Cairns International Hotel, Grand Ballroom, 17 Abbott Street, Cairns, QLD

Proof PDF 355KB

Thursday 4 September 2003

2:30pm - 5:30pm Arana Hills Leagues Club, Apollo Room, Dawson Parade, Keperra, QLD

Proof PDF 25KB

Thursday 4 September 2003

9:20am - 12:00noon Robina Community Centre, Robina Town Centre Drive, Robina,(Gold Coast) QLD

Proof PDF 338KB

Monday 1 September 2003

3:00pm - 6:00pm Blacktown Civic Centre, Nirimba Room

5th Floor, 62 Flushcombe Road, Blacktown,(Sydney) NSW Proof PDF 508KB

Monday 1 September 2003

9:00am-12:00nn WIN Entertainment Centre, The Captains Room

Cnr Crown and Harbour Street, Wollongong, NSW Proof PDF 361KB

Friday 29 August 2003

10:00am - 1:00pm Conference Centre, Doherty's Launceston International Hotel

29 Cameron Street, Launceston, TAS Proof PDF 419KB

Thursday 28 August 2003

2:00pm - 5:00pm Hungarian Community Centre

760 Boronia Road, Wantirna, VIC (Knox Melbourne) Proof PDF 395KB

Thursday 28 August 2003

8:30am - 11:30am Centenary Hall, City of Greater Geelong

Cnr Princess Highway and Cox Road, Norlane, Geelong, VIC Proof PDF 472KB

";"http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/fca/childcustody/hearings.htm

Forthcoming and past dates. Hansard transcripts are available for all hearings prior to October 10. "; "151";"JOI";"Joint Custody 50/50 Inquiry - Submissions";"Parliament House website, Canberra";"2003-10-15";;;"Submissions

Submissions to this inquiry were received from the following individuals/organisations and copies of some of those submissions are available on this site or from the Committee Secretariat. Further submissions will be made available on this site as original paper copies are converted to electronic documents.

and can be viewed and downloaded from

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/fca/childcustody/subs.htm

The submission made by Men's Rights Agency is not yet on-line.

To view or print the pdf document, you will require the Adobe Acrobat® PDF Reader, which can be downloaded free of charge from Adobe.®

No Received from

29 Women’s Information and Referral Exchange Inc (WIRE) (PDF 247KB)

191 Australian Family Support Services Association (PDF 180KB)

203 Mr Richard Nancarrow (PDF 451KB)

207 Illawarra Legal Centre on behalf of the National Welfare Rights Network (PDF 607KB)

222 Bryan Rodgers, ANU (PDF 587KB)

260 Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre Inc (PDF 1055KB)

410 Mr Volker Hartmann (PDF 280KB)

422 NSW Bar Association (PDF 527KB)

435 Relationships Australia Tasmania (PDF 283KB)

571 Mr Malcolm Olden (PDF 209KB)

703 Australians Against Child Abuse (PDF 291KB)

717 Australian Psychological Society Ltd (PDF 1855KB)

741 Federal Magistrates Court of Australia (PDF 428KB)

742 WETTANK, WEL Australia, YWCA, and Children by Choice (PDF 2265KB)

743 Patrick Parkinson, Professor of Law, and Judy Cashmore, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney (PDF 3601KB)

744 Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) (PDF 2143KB)

745 Legal Aid Commission of NSW (PDF 1683KB)

751 Family Court of Australia (PDF 8822KB)

753 Federation of Community Legal Centres Inc (Vic) (PDF 612KB)

806 Sole Parents’ Union (PDF 2067KB)

807 Ms Maggie Walter, Lecturer, University of Tasmania (PDF 208KB)

819 The Law Society of New South Wales (PDF 1719KB)

836 National Association of Community Legal Centres (PDF 298KB)

843 No To Violence (NTV) (PDF 197KB)

860 Tasmanian Men’s Health & Wellbeing Association Inc (PDF 282KB)

861 Youth Affairs Council of Victoria Inc (PDF 750KB)

901 Families, Law and Social Policy Research Unit, Socio-Legal Research Centre, Griffith University (PDF 811KB)

906 Family Law Foundation, WA (PDF 523KB)

1020 National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council (NADRAC) (PDF 576KB)

1021 Family Law Section, Law Council of Australia (PDF 1911KB)

1022 Catholic Welfare Australia (PDF 1424KB)

1023 Family Services Australia (PDF 3283KB)

1050 Shared Parenting Council of Australia (PDF 6077KB)

1051 Lone Fathers’ Association (Aust.) Inc. (PDF 3626KB)

1052 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) (PDF 4324KB)

1053 National Legal Aid (PDF 1007KB)

1054 Relationships Australia (PDF 5312KB)

1055 Australian Institute of Family Studies (PDF 3839KB)

1111 Family Court of Western Australia (PDF 176KB)

1132 Women's Law Centre of WA (Inc) (PDF 1112KB)

1133 Women's Law Centre of WA (Inc) (supplementary) (PDF 329KB)

1141 Aboriginal Legal Services of Western Australia Inc (PDF 616KB)

1150 Australian Association of Infant Mental Health, South Australian Branch (PDF 135KB)

1174 Lone Fathers' Association, South Australian Branch (PDF 135KB)

1176 Richard Hillman Foundation Incorporated - John Abbott (PDF 195KB)

1177 Richard Hillman Foundation Incorporated - Pavel Muckarovski (PDF 709KB)

1178 Richard Hillman Foundation Incorporated - Mark Bourne (PDF 535KB)

1179 Richard Hillman Foundation Incorporated - Shane Kelly (PDF 323KB)

1214 Ms Szabina Horvath (PDF 184KB)

1215 Top End Women's Legal Service, NT (PDF 375KB)

1217 Dawn House Inc, NT (PDF 321KB)

1251 Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services (FACS), including the Child Support Scheme(CSS) (PDF 223KB)

1253 Family Law Foundation, WA (supplementary) (PDF 271KB)

1257 Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department (PDF 527KB)

1260 Tasmanian Government (PDF 590KB)

1266 Government of South Australia (PDF 685KB)

1550 Family of Court of Australia (supplementary) (PDF 313KB)

";"Submissions

Submissions to this inquiry were received from the following individuals/organisations and copies of some of those submissions are available on this site or from the Committee Secretariat. Further submissions will be made available on t"; "152";"fam";"Straying wives match men as marital cheats";"The Sunday Times - Britain";"2003-10-26";"John Elliott and Rachel Dobson";;"http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-868000,00.html

UNPRECEDENTED numbers of married women are sneaking off for extramarital

sex, according to a panel of top divorce lawyers. While occasional cheating

has long been regarded as the province of husbands, bored wives are now

catching up.

Grant Thornton Forensic and Investigation Services, which advises on the

financial side of divorce, asked 50 divorce lawyers to name the most common

causes of the cases they had handled in the past year.

Of those who cited extramarital affairs, 45% said that it was usually the

wives who cheated, while 55% said it was the husbands.

Experts blame greater social freedom for women including better

contraceptives, greater equality in the workplace and easier divorce.

Britain¹s long working hours culture, which particularly affects

middle-class male managers, may also be a cause.

Susan Quilliam, a psychologist and relationship counsellor, says the

contraceptive pill may make it easier for women to have an affair but their

greater financial independence is also a factor. “Decades ago, if you had an

affair and your man threw you out, you would be in financial hardship,” she

said.

“There is more freedom now for women to move outside of the family home.

Even if they are not working there are other opportunities to go out

lunching or on a girls' night. The social climate of today has made an

affair acceptable, so women see it, read about it and think it is okay.”

Sarah Smith, 38, a marketing consultant in London, divorced her husband

three years ago after she had two affairs. She said: “My ex-husband worked

in the City and was out entertaining clients most nights of the week. I just

got bored waiting for him to come home all the time.”

Smith embarked on a full-blown affair with a colleague. “We worked together,

so it was easy to sneak around, but in the end we fell in love. We would

travel together on business so there was a lot of opportunity to be

together,” she said.

“I left my husband, but my new relationship only lasted a year. Looking

back, I think it was just the excuse I needed finally to get out of my

unhappy marriage.”

Tracey Cox, a psychologist and expert on relationships, says that many

women¹s attitudes towards relationships are increasingly similar to men¹s.

“Our predecessors used to go to the make-up counter and buy themselves a

lipstick to cheer themselves up, but now women will go out and flirt with a

colleague, have an extra drink and suddenly they are having an affair,” she

said.

“Women are very good at lying, so they get away with it and their

girlfriends will cover for them.”

The survey found that extramarital affairs are the most common reason for

starting divorce proceedings - they are a factor in 30% of cases, followed

by couples 'gradually growing apart over time' (26%) and strains caused by

family life (11%). Emotional and physical abuse is a factor in 10% of cases,

the study suggests.

Counsellors say an affair is often the last of a string of factors leading

to the divorce lawyer's office. Gillian Walton, of London Marriage Guidance,

said: “Sometimes the affair is a cry for help, or an acting out of something

that isn¹t present in the marriage, like the fun, excitement or the sex. But

an affair is by no means the end of a marriage these days.”

Adultery often features in the ending of celebrity marriages. Les Dennis,

the game show host, and Amanda Holden, the actress, are divorcing. Holden¹s

affair with the actor Neil Morrissey had been a big factor.

Affairs do not always end in divorce. Zoë Ball and Norman Cook split up

after she started a relationship with Dan Peppe, a fellow DJ, but they are

now back together.

When a marriage does end, there is often acrimony and deceit. The study

found that in most divorces one partner - in 90% of cases the man - sought

to conceal assets from the other. This is usually done by using an off-shore

bank account or by passing assets to a new companion.

According to the panel of lawyers, women tend to keep the main house, its

contents and any pets, while men tend to retain savings, investments, cars

and second homes.

With two out of five of marriages now ending in divorce - a four-fold rise

since the 1960s - couples are hedging their bets by drawing up pre-nuptial

agreements. The study reported that 57% of the lawyers say they are helping

to prepare more of these arrangements.

";"http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-868000,00.html

UNPRECEDENTED numbers of married women are sneaking off for extramarital

sex, according to a pa"; "153";"mnc";"Male abuse is not a laughing matter";"Canberra Times";"2003-10-27";;;"ADMIT IT. When you heard that Liza Minnelli had been accused by her husband, David Gest, of beating him up, you laughed.

He says the Cabaret star beat him in the head so hard she caused brain damage.

Even as I read this, I smirked.

When I reached the passage explaining that he now has to take 11 prescription medicines to deal with the pain, and that he has developed a phobia of loud noises, I - far too late - stopped chuckling.

Domestic violence targeted at men is one of our biggest taboos.

When it is forced into the public gaze, we react in a way that shames us.

In EastEnders, Pauline Fowler reacted to the news that her husband was having an affair by beating him over the head with a frying pan.

The viewers cheered.

This is not a trivial issue that is confined to the more freakish Beverly Hills mansions or soapy TV dramas.

A BBC poll has found that 18 per cent of British men admit to being victims of domestic violence, compared with 13 per cent of women.

These figures seem improbably high, but even the much lower rate found by the British Crime Survey of 2001-2 records that one in five of all incidents of domestic violence is committed against a man.

Poor men, I can hear some people moan - at least now you know what it's like.

Feminist writer Wendy McElroy has interviewed one typical victim of this aggression in the United States, and shows why this attitude is unworthy of the heroic feminist tradition.

“During one confrontation with his wife, Stanley locked himself into the family car for safety,” she explains.

“His wife broke in, shoved him face-first into the passenger seat [and] planted her knees in his back.

“She used a heavy cellular phone to club him repeatedly across the side of the head.”

When he approached the police to explain what had happened, they laughed and refused to record the crime.

Things are getting slightly better.

This year, the British Government declared for the first time that battered men had to be part of its strategy for dealing with domestic violence.

This is in the interests of us all. Children who grow up trapped in violent homes are far more likely to grow up to be violent criminals.

Liza Minnelli, if she is guilty, will be a typical product of this environment - and this might be the first time Liza has even been described as typical.

Her mother, Judy Garland, often resorted to violence against men, especially her second husband, Sid Luft.

Yet places for battered men and their children to flee to are rare.

Indeed Minnelli has had more husbands than we have battered men's shelters.

The cause of battered husbands has, unfortunately, been picked up by some unsavoury individuals who put normal people off this otherwise noble cause.

Growing numbers of “men's groups” have used abused men as weapons in their testosterone-fuelled gender war.

Too often, they seem to be motivated primarily by anger at growing equality for women, rather than concern for battered men.

These rather sad men angrily accuse feminists of deliberately downplaying this issue, or even suppressing evidence of it.

Murray A. Straus, a sociologist at the University of New Hampshire who tries to draw attention to the plight of battered husbands, lambasted “women in the battered [women's] shelter movement” on these grounds.

This is not a helpful attitude.

Advocates for battered men should not set themselves up against advocates for battered women - they should unite in a common struggle against violence in the home.

But all women's advocates need to acknowledge that men confront a real problem too.

The vast majority already do - callous, anti-male feminists are largely a misogynistic myth - but occasionally you will hear attitudes like that expressed in the classic domestic violence text, The Battered Woman, by Lenore Walker.

“There is no doubt that she began to assault Paul physically before he assaulted her,” she says casually about one woman who committed violent acts against her husband.

“However, it is also clear from the rest of her story that Paul had been battering her by ignoring her and working late for the entire five years of his marriage.”

The unacceptability of these attitudes should now be obvious.

The situation for the men being smacked and burned as you read this might seem bleak.

But it doesn't have to be this way.

It is not so long ago that we reacted to all domestic violence with the faintly amused expression we now reserve for Pauline Fowler and other husband-beaters.

In the 1960s, Britain's favourite avuncular copper, George Dixon of the BBC's Dixon of Dock Green, would respond to wife-beating with trite homilies about how it was not the job of the British bobby to intervene in “domestics”.

It will require a huge culture shift and many, many courageous men will have to brave the humiliation, break the silence and come forward.

But one day, we will look back on our reaction to the Minnelli-Gest case with the incomprehension we now feel for the monochrome world of Sergeant Dixon.

- The Independent

";"ADMIT IT. When you heard that Liza Minnelli had been accused by her husband, David Gest, of beating him up, you laughed.

He says the Cabaret star beat him in the head so hard she caused brain damage.

Even as I read this, I sm"; "154";"mnc";"Women emerge as aggressors in Alberta survey";"National Post (Toronto, Ontario)";"1999-07-10";"Brad Evenson and Carol Milstone";;"http://www.franks.org/fr01060.htm

67% of women questioned say they started severe conflicts

This article appeared in the National Post (Toronto, Ontario) on 10 July 1999.

This item may be cited as Brad Evenson and Carol Milstone, Women emerge as aggressors in Alberta survey, National Post (online edition), July 10, 1999.

OTTAWA - Women are just as violent to their spouses as men, and women are almost three times more likely to initiate violence in a relationship, according to a new Canadian study that deals a blow to the image of the male as the traditional domestic aggressor.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the study, however, is the source of the data -- a 1987 survey of 705 Alberta men and women that reported how often males hit their spouses.

Although the original researchers asked women the same questions as men, their answers were never published until now.

When the original Alberta study was published in the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science in 1989, it was taken up by feminist groups as evidence of the epidemic of violence against women.

The researchers, Leslie Kennedy and Donald Dutton, say they were primarily interested in male-to-female violence at the time.

In any case, the one-sided Kennedy-Dutton study was cited extensively in a 1990 House of Commons committee report The War Against Women, which ultimately led Brian Mulroney, the former prime minister, to call a two-year, $10-million national inquiry into violence against women. The inquiry's 460-page report made 494 recommendations aimed at changing attitudes in governments, police departments, courts, hospitals and churches. It also led to a torrent of lurid news features about battered women.

The current study, which will appear this week -- again, in the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science -- says that while the need to stop violence against women is obvious, violence against men is being ignored.

“Our society seems to harbour an implicit acceptance of women's violence as relatively harmless,” writes Marilyn Kwong, the Simon Fraser University researcher who led this study.

“Furthermore, the failure to acknowledge the possibility of women's violence . . . jeopardizes the credibility of all theory and research directed toward ending violence against women.”

The study shows roughly that 10.8% of men in the survey pushed, grabbed or threw objects at their spouses in the previous year, while 2.5% committed more severe acts, such as choking, kicking or using a weapon.

By contrast, 12.4% of women committed acts of minor violence and 4.7% committed severe violence.

The violence is seldom one-sided. Of those surveyed, 52% of women and 62% of men reported that both partners were violent.

When questioned about who initiated the most severe conflicts, 67% of women believed they had started it; only 26% believed it was their male spouse.

Regardless of who started it, women appear to end up the losers in the struggle. A major U.S. study on the topic shows 3% of women suffer injuries in spousal violence, while only 0.4% of males were hurt badly enough to seek medical care.

Publication of the “other side” of the violence study provides a sharp illustration of how social science is manipulated to fit a particular agenda.

“It happens all the time. People only tell one half of the story,” says Eugen Lupri, a University of Calgary sociologist whose research shows similar patterns of violence against men.

“Feminists themselves use our studies, but they only publish what they like.

“As some feminists say, it's counter-intuitive. We would not expect that to be true; and if things are not expected to be true, for some people they are not true.”

Even the federal government appears to turn a blind eye. In 1993, Statistics Canada began to keep track of assaults by men on women in its Violence Against Women survey. But it does not measure the female-to-male violence. “At the time, it was decided that since violence against women was more prevalent, we would only keep track of that,” explains spokesperson Shelley Crego.

Ms.Crego said this decision was based on police reports, noting women complain more frequently of assault by men than vice versa.

In her article, Dr. Kwong implies this creates an incorrect picture. “It is important to keep in mind that, within the criminal justice system, any of the physical acts endorsed by these respondents would constitute assault,” she writes.

Nor does it appear that violence is confined to married or common-law relationships.

In a separate study to be published this week, researchers from the University of Regina and Wilfrid Laurier University report that 39% of males surveyed said they suffered violence while on a date, compared with 26% of females.

“This sex difference has been found in other studies of physical and psychological dating violence,” report researchers Donald Sharpe and Janelle Taylor.

";"http://www.franks.org/fr01060.htm

67% of women questioned say they started severe conflicts

This article appeared in the National Post (Toronto, Ontario) on 10 Jul"; "155";"mnc";"Domestic Violence Awareness Meets Marriage Protection";"Human Events";"2003-10-27";"Stephen Baskerville";;"http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=2189

If it's October it must be “Domestic Violence Awareness Month.” This federally driven observance has generated a steady stream of dishonest claims about how domestic violence is a gender crime perpetrated entirely by men against women. This non-existent crisis will be used to set aside more constitutional protections in order to railroad innocent men into jail.

Men's groups are beginning to fight back, pointing out decades of unchallenged research establishing that domestic violence is perpetrated as much by women as men.

But more needs to be said. Most of the domestic violence hysteria is generated for one purpose: to gain advantage in custody battles. In other words, trumped-up domestic violence accusations break up marriages and separate children from their fathers.

It is ironic but perhaps also fitting that just two weeks ago President Bush proclaimed Marriage Protection Week. Though this was a response to the flap over gay marriage, it might be even more constructively used to raise awareness of how the domestic violence industry is destroying marriage and creating fatherless children.

Now domestic violence hysteria is becoming so extreme that it is creating a quasi-totalitarian gulag, where fathers are evicted from their homes without any evidence of wrongdoing, interrogated, and forced to confess to crimes they never committed.

That's right. American citizens are routinely forced, on pain of incarceration, to sign confessions.

Forced confessions are familiar from the Stalinist regimes of Eastern Europe. Prisoners were required to denounce themselves for their “crimes” against socialism. Arthur Koestler described this vividly in his novel, Darkness at Noon.

In Warren County, Pa., fathers like Robert Pessia are told they will be jailed unless they sign documents confessing to acts of violence. The confessions require the father to admit, “I have physically and emotionally battered my partner. I have committed the following acts of violence against her.” He must then describe the violence, even if he insists he committed none. The documents require him to state, “I am responsible for the violence I used. My behavior was not provoked.”

As Pessia says, “This means I have lied and admit to something that I did not do.” Other men testify, “It will be useless to try to defend myself because it will just make it worse.”

The “violence” in question need not even be, in fact, violent. It may be anything the “victim” (who may only be “emotionally battered“) says it is. “Depriving her of clothes” and “harassing her over bills” are among the definitions of “violence” promoted by some domestic violence authorities. Words like violence are debased into meaningless Newspeak, so that no defense is possible and no due process of law is applicable.

The line between law enforcement and psychotherapy becomes dangerously blurred, since the required confessions usually begin as involuntary therapy. Politicized psychotherapy echoes Soviet practice, where psychiatric prisons were used to confine and drug dissidents like V.I. Fainberg and V. E. Borisov, whose political views and ethical principles were taken as indications of mental illness.

These officials are not joking. In Massachusetts, minister Harry Stewart was jailed for six months for refusing to confess.

In Britain too the Labour government is employing Gestapo methods and destroying centuries-old Common Law protections for individual rights in the name of domestic violence. Home Secretary David Blunkett recently announced police raids to round-up and arrest men. The operation was carried out by something called the “Diversity Directorate” of the London police.

Blunkett's Conservative Party counterpart, Oliver Letwin, calls his methods authoritarian. Something extreme is taking place when a right-wing law-and-order spokesman can criticize the police methods of a left-wing government as heavy-handed.

It is clear that the purpose here is not to arrest individual lawbreakers but to instill fear in a target population. Gloria Steinem isn't joking when she says, “Feminism is a revolution.” If so, the domestic violence machinery is executing its Reign of Terror.

Too many conservatives turn a blind eye to these abuses because they assume it is a matter of law-and-order. It is not. It is the perversion of criminal justice to serve an ideological agenda, bringing the law into contempt and leaving the weak at the mercy of truly dangerous criminals.

Perhaps this year we might celebrate Domestic Violence Awareness Month and Marriage Protection Week together, by becoming aware of how the domestic violence hoax is being used to destroy marriage and erect a police state.

Dr. Baskerville teaches political science at Howard University.

";"http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=2189

If it's October it must be “Domestic Violence Awareness Month.” This federally driven observance has generated a "; "156";"fam";"Loaded justice";"Daily Mail (UK)";"2003-11-05";"Melanie Phillips";;"One man dressed in a Spiderman outfit has single-handedly been bringing

chaos to central London. Since last Friday, David Chick has been perched on

top of a 150 ft crane in order to publicise his protest about the way the

courts treat separated fathers.

Police have erected roadblocks around the crane to prevent Mr Chick from

falling onto passers-by. The result is miles of tailbacks and misery for

thousands of commuters trapped helplessly in the gridlock.

Mr Chick is merely the latest estranged father to stage a public protest.

Militancy amongst fathers' groups is increasing. They have picketed judges'

houses, forced the temporary closure of one court, placed hoax bombs in

others and intimidated mothers arriving for hearings.

This kind of irresponsibility, harassment and threatening behaviour is

totally unacceptable, and should be punished. Nevertheless, the desperation

driving these men to such acts is real.

The flashpoint behind Mr Chick's protest is how judges handle the difficult

issue of contact with children after divorce. When the courts award care of

the children to the mother, they usually make an order that she should

allow the children to have contact with their father.

But when the father tries to make such contact, he often finds the mother

bars his way. She fobs off the court with a series of flaky excuses. Worse

still, she may make spurious allegations of abuse.

Even if the facts behind such claims are actually examined, the proceedings

are weighted towards the mother. And many blameless fathers end up losing

contact with their children.

The courts don't want to jail the mothers because their children live with

them. On this basis, no mother should ever be sent to prison for any crime.

And anyway, why do they all have to be jailed? Many children could be sent

to live with their fathers instead.

The courts think a child should be with its mother. But a mother who

spitefully denies her child access to its father shows she is not fit to be

in charge of that child.

The judges want to avoid enraging the mother still further, which they

think would be bad for the child. But being deprived of its father is bad

for the child. With the courts paralysed by their belief that mothers have

to be handled with kid gloves, women have been able to string them along

and get away with actions wholly against their children¹s interests.

The singer Bob Geldof has drawn attention to this injustice. Drawing on his

own custody battle with his late ex-wife Paula Yates, he has rightly

observed that family law is creating 'vast wells of misery, massive

discontent, an unstable society of feral children and feckless adolescents

who have no understanding of authority, no knowledge of a man's love and

how different but equal it is to a woman's.'

No doubt such outbursts are why some senior judges recently acknowledged

that with so many contact orders being flouted by mothers, the law is being

brought into disrepute. As a result, in a recent case where a mother

refused contact, judges did for once transfer care of the child to the father.

But this problem is far broader and deeper than flouted contact orders. The

whole justice system is institutionally biased against men and marriage. It

is driven by an extreme feminist agenda, which stretches from the humblest

family lawyer through the politically correct Law Commission to reach all

the way up to government and the senior reaches of the judiciary.

How else can one explain the extraordinary proposal by the Law Commission -

which is expected to be backed by the government - that women who commit

premeditated murder of their menfolk may be charged merely with

manslaughter if they have been abused?

At present, manslaughter only applies if the killing occurs in the heat of

the moment. But the new argument is that if there was a history of abuse,

such provocation excuses the deed even if it was carefully planned.

This is rigging the law to allow women literally to get away with murder.

(The same provision would apply to abused men; but since such men are

seldom believed, and most men who kill do so in the heat of the moment, it

is mainly women to whom this would apply).

Of course, abused women need protection. But premeditation means women have

a choice not to kill. The proposal gives the signal that premeditated

killing in a domestic setting is justifiable. It effectively says that the

crime is the fault not of the killer but of her victim. By removing

personal responsibility for murder, it represents a wholesale attack

against the fundamental principle of law itself.

But then, through a combination of moral cowardice and extreme feminism,

family lawyers have been writing personal responsibility out of the script

for decades. First, they removed the idea that behaviour mattered, so that

eventually divorce law became so meaningless that fault was removed from it

altogether.

And now, they actually reward bad behaviour. Despite the fact that women

have been becoming increasingly unfaithful and predatory, they are now

mainly awarded the lion¹s share of divorce settlements.

Underlying it all is the judges' assumption that women are generally more

sinned against than sinning and that marriage is out of date - a fact they

have done their best to bring about. The leading exponent of that view ­

and the most influential voice in family law over at least the past two

decades - is Lady Justice Hale, a hard-line feminist, an opponent of

marriage (despite being twice married herself) and a champion of easier

divorce and equal rights for cohabitants.

Now she is to become the first female member of the Law Lords. She is

without doubt exceedingly able. But her elevation epitomises the moral

vacuum within our judiciary and wider establishment, which instead of

holding the line for justice and social order are in thrall to the politics

of the self, which makes victims of the vulnerable and leaves a trail of

social and emotional devastation in its wake.

So men increasingly find they lose their homes and their children, even if

their behaviour has been blameless. Their reckless public protests are

inexcusable. But so, too, are the manifold injustices which are

increasingly driving them over the edge.

You can post your comments online just below the article.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/000093.html";"One man dressed in a Spiderman outfit has single-handedly been bringing

chaos to central London. Since last Friday, David Chick has been perched on

top of a 150 ft crane in order to publicise his protest about the way the

courts tr"; "157";"fem";"Whiplash vs. Trueheart: The Politics of Melodrama";"SOURCE: http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/robbins/03/robbins103003.htm";"2003-10-30";"Paul C. Robbins, Ph.D.";;"

The plot was simple: Snidely Whiplash versus Tom Trueheart for the love of

Tess. Tess was young and desirable, torn between Whiplash and Trueheart.

It's a theme that's been played out before and since, but it took definitive

shape in the American melodrama. Melodramas are not as popular as they once

were, but you can still find them at your local dinner playhouse. And over

at your local NOW headquarters.

Whiplash certainly had his appeal: wealth, power, cunning. He could provide

much the fellow in the white hat could not. Inevitably Tess falls for

Snidely, only to realize it's a Faustian bargain. Yes, he's rich, but he

desires her more than he loves her, and when she begins to withdraw because

she sees his true character, he resolves that if he cannot have her, no man

can.

So he ties her to the railroad track, where tons of steel would render her

delicate form lifeless were it not for Tom, who rescues her at the last

minute and does in Snidely.

In the good old days, melodramas were about the personal choices made by men

and women.

For women, it was a choice between two types of men: pure-hearted Tom or

evil-hearted Snidely. Tom has a heart full of love but a wallet with more

dreams than dollars. He loves Tess, for sure, but bad boys have their

appeal, so Tess picks Snidely.

For men, it was about what kind of man they wanted to be: Snidely or Tom,

the villain or the hero. Snidely was a man who used his money and power to

gain what he wanted, yet had no respect for women. Tom was a real man, the

kind who respected women and treated them with respect. Not a SNAG, not a

wimp, for he can take care of himself-but the kind of man a woman really

wants because his heart his true.

The moral was simple. Women, choose the good guy. Men, choose to be the good

guy-and good guy is good because he is good to women. He provides for and

protects the woman he loves because he loves her. He is strong when strength

is needed and gentle when gentleness is needed. Just the type of man all men

want to be. And the type all women want.

Of course, in the melodrama mercy and justice are doled out differently to

men and women. Even though Tess chooses Snidely over Tom, she still hopes

Tom will rescue her from her tormentor, forgive her, and take her back. Tom

does, of course, revealing the love in his heart that finds her more to be

pitied than censured. Tom doesn't hold her accountable for her mistake. Tess

receives the mercy she deserves-largely, one suspects, because she is a

woman.

Men, on the other hand, are accountable. Snidely is not simply forgiven and

allowed to go away in peace; he loses his life at the hands of Tom,

receiving the justice he deserves.

All men want to be Tom Trueheart, to be the hero. All men also know there's

a bit of Snidely Whiplash inside them, but that's why the choice matters. We

can choose to be Snidely or Tom, but most of us choose to be Tom. And the

melodrama simply pointed out the wisdom of that choice. In the end, Tom, not

Snidely, got the girl.

This basic triangle of good guy vs bad guy for the love of a woman is very

persistent, starting with Homer, when the Greeks take up arms against the

Trojans to bring back the fair Helen. In truth, most men despise wife

beaters and rapists, and most men seek to protect women. And most men are

very uncomfortable fighting against women or finding they have to protect

themselves from women. Men like to be the hero who saves the woman from the

railroad track, but neither the victim nor the villain.

All of which is prelude to understanding that Snidely Whiplash of

ideologies-modern, twenty-first century feminism.

Modern feminism turns women against men, turning the friendly battle of the

sexes into full-scale war. It's a war men don't know how to fight, how to

win, a war that forces men to fight against women instead of for women. Of

course, as the melodrama tells us, as soon as a man fights against a woman,

he becomes Snidely Whiplash. So if anyone opposes feminism, he's portrayed

as a Snidely, a misogynist, a villain.

So how does feminism get men to do as it wants? By turning the melodramatic

triangle into a political triangle: good politicians vs average schmuck for

the love of Tess.

Or at least her vote.

The feminist hero is a man with enough power to give women what they want:

freedom from the consequences of their actions. To get the good politicians

to do this, feminism portrays the average man as a wife beater, a deadbeat

dad, an uncaring slob who hogs the remote, molests his kids, and only works

to make money for himself. In short, the average man is Snidely Whiplash.

The average politician is-or should be-Tom Trueheart, ready to rescue poor

helpless women from the vile clutches of these everyday Snidelys.

It portrays women as Tess, tied to the railroad track waiting for the

politician or the judge to come rescue her.

Even when she's tied herself to the railroad track. After all, a victim

ideology needs victims. And the easiest way to become a victim is to make

yourself into one.

Feminism did not start a new game, but plays the same old game women have

played for centuries. It's melodrama redux, poor Tess the helpless victim

who is not responsible for her actions expecting mercy from the man she

rejected. But with a twist-the triangle now consists of woman, a man, and a

powerful politician.

That's why Bill Clinton is the iconic feminist politician. He treated his

wife shabbily, his daughter worse, but the feminists adored him because he

was pro-choice.

And what do the feminists want? Primarily, as far as I can observe, choices

without consequences. Freedom without responsibility. In a word, license.

That's why abortion is their flagship issue. Abortion means sex without

consequences.

And what's their argument for abortion? Usually, compassion-for the woman

who made the “mistake.” Like Tess who selected Snidely over Tom, she's found

herself in a bit of a mess-and she needs rescuing by a friendly Supreme

Court who will allow her to stay off that train due in nine months.

Abortion also denies the rights, even the humanity, of the other two

parties-the unborn child and the father. By legal technicality, the unborn

child has no rights. By biological technicality, the father has no rights.

And that leads us to the primary triumph of feminism-that the needs of women

trump the needs of men and children.

Most non-feminist societies are based on the following hierarchy of needs:

the child's needs come first, the woman's needs come second, and the man's

needs come last. It was because of this hierarchy that men went down with

the Titanic.

In a feminist society, as the US has become, the needs of the woman comes

first, the needs of the child comes second, and the needs of the man come

last. In a feminist society, the men and the children go down with the

Titanic, the women get the lifeboats.

The feminists achieved this triumph with the oldest feminine game in the

book. Like Tess in the melodrama, they played victim. No responsibility. No blame. No guilt. Like Tess, they deserve only compassion and mercy.

It's a game that appeals to both liberal and conservative politicians. To liberals, it's about protecting and liberating women from the cruel Snidely

Whiplashes who ruin their lives. To conservatives, it's about dishing out justice to men who richly deserve it.

So men-at least the average, everyday Joe Sixpacks-are portrayed as, well,

Joe Sixpacks, more interested in sports and beer and hogging the remote than

in being loving husbands and fathers.

And yet most men are loving husbands and fathers, who do far more good than

evil, who work longer hours than women, who die more frequently at work or

on the battlefield, who give more time to their kids today than ever before.

But only by demonizing and denigrating men, by treating them legally as

Snidely Whiplashes, can much of modern jurisprudence be justified.

Take domestic violence. The Violence Against Women Act is based on the

assumption that only men batter, yet studies show women are as likely to

batter as men. And further, that women are more likely to abuse and murder

their children than men. Yet when Andrea Yates killed her children, the

feminists placed the blame on Mr. Yates. And when Clara Harris murdered her husband, she still got custody of her kids-even though she's in a jail cell.

Both were portrayed as victims.

Take divorce. Most divorces are initiated by mothers, who commonly receive

the children, the bulk of marital property, and child support. Yet official

policy is to treat them as victims, to provide them with welfare and legal

assistance, and to hound divorced fathers as “deadbeat dads.” Women are

treated as victims even when they choose their victimhood.

Take work. Women benefit from affirmative action and are protected by sexual

harassment laws. These make it easier from women to procure jobs and provide

women greater protection, but it make it more difficult for men to procure

jobs and provide men with less protection.

Take the military. Even though many women freely participated in Tailhook,

only the men were held accountable.

The result is a system in which men feel increasingly alienated and in which

women feel increasingly entitled, a system in which increasingly women have

rights without responsibilities and men have responsibilities without

rights. No, we're not quite there yet-but the train is definitely headed

down that track.

Of course, the system is a house divided, and as it begins to fall, the

government applies the only measures it has: money and force. It gives money

to the women and uses force on the men. Thus, a woman who can't support her

kids is given welfare, but a man who can't support his kids is put in jail.

And yet the system has gone as far as it has because of a very basic reason:

most men want to be and choose to be Tom Trueheart.

If the system rewards victims, canonizes victims, creates official classes

of victims (mostly, women and minorities), then being a victim becomes

desirable.

But men don't like to play victim. They prefer to play hero. And it's this

very willingness to play hero that allows the system to continue. Men want

to be the good guy in the white hat, often not recognizing that the system

deems them the villain no matter what they do.

So they do the right thing, as men-at least true men-have always done. So

the child support gets paid and the custody order gets obeyed, and the

system continues.

And though men can be victimized by women because women today have very real

legal power-granted to them by Tom Trueheart politicians-men are very

uncomfortable in the role of victim. They don't like going to the

legislatures and the judges with hats in hands to beg for relief.

They don't like being victims. They like being heroes.

And heroes never fight against women. Heroes fight to protect women and to

provide for women. And to protect children and to provide for children.

And so men suck it up and do what The Man requires.

They play Tom Trueheart.

Because their other option is to play Snidely Whiplash.

By playing Snidely Whiplash they justify society's demonization of men-they

are portrayed as angry men who deserve not to be heard. So many turn

suicidal, some turn homicidal, and others lapse into a half-life, their

anger and hurt and sense of injustice muted by alcohol, drugs, sex, or too

much work. Their pain finds no voice.

But worse, the pain of children finds no voice.

After all, children don't vote. And women today have been seduced by a

feminism that puts the needs of children second. Children easily become

pawns to get more entitlements-have children, play victim, get money.

Modern feminism has liberated women not so much by freeing them from the

yoke of men, but by freeing them from the yoke of children.

You see, if women have responsibility for children, then women might have

some restrictions on their freedom.

So, instead, the responsibility is placed on men, even when women make the

choices.

If the children of divorce have problems, if the children of unwed mothers

have problems, it's because men don't pay child support. Woman victim, man

villain.

If a single moms need childcare to work, the government provides that

childcare. Woman victim, government rescuer.

It's the oldest con game in town-a free lunch. If you're a victim, you get a

free lunch. To get a free lunch, become a victim.

Tie yourself to the railroad track, and trust you'll get rescued by some

politician.

Sounds foolish, doesn't it?

It's exactly the kind of foolishness the melodrama warned against.

And exactly the kind of foolishness modern feminism embraces.

Paul C. Robbins, Ph.D.

Dr. Robbins lives in Colorado, where he likes to fish for trout, hunt for

elk, ski the Rockies, and, mostly, spend a lot of time with his daughters,

Sarah and Carey. A divorced dad, he has witnessed first hand the injustice

of family court. He also has a dream--to open a spiritual retreat in his

beloved mountains. You can contact him at probbins12@msn.com

SOURCE: http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/robbins/03/robbins103003.htm

";"

The plot was simple: Snidely Whiplash versus Tom Trueheart for the love of

Tess. Tess was young and desirable, torn between Whiplash and Trueheart.

It's a theme that's been played out before and since, but it took definitive "; "158";"JOI";"Child-support revamp";"The Courier Mail (Brisbane)";"2003-11-04";"Chris Jones, national political reporter";;"http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,7762179,00.html

Child-support payments might soon be based on the real cost of raising

children rather than on the non-custodial parent's income.

A new system of a sliding scale of payments based on the age and number of

children in a family, as well as parental income, is shaping as the most

likely option for reform to be recommended by a parliamentary committee.

The parliamentary inquiry into child custody arrangements has heard the

present system is generally considered unfair by both custodial and

non-custodial parents.

The committee also is considering using its report to recommend that

parents receiving child-support payments be forced to put a proportion of

the money into trust funds to be used later for specific purposes, such as

paying for the children's education or holidays.

It will consider suggesting the Government use after-tax rather than

pre-tax income to assess the level of child support payments because of

concern that some non-custodial parents are having to live off 25 per cent

of their gross income.

A committee hearing in Canberra yesterday was told the child support

payment formula of setting payments at between 18 per cent and 36 per cent

of the non-custodial parent's income, depending on the number of children,

needed to be changed.

The hearing was told the formula took no account of the age of the children

or the fact that while high-income earners tended to spend more in dollar

terms on their children, the cost as a proportion of their income was lower

than that of parents on low incomes.

Committee chairwoman Kay Hull (Nationals, Riverina) questioned whether it

was right to maintain the current formula, saying it was unfair

child-support payments were based solely on the parent's income.

Research submitted to the inquiry from the National Centre for Social and

Economic Modelling found that older kids were more expensive than younger

children and confirmed the average cost of raising a single child rose

depending on income.

The research also found the cost of raising a second and third child

decreased compared to the first, and compared to income levels.

While low-income families tended to spend about 18 per cent of their income

on their first child, those in higher income brackets spent a considerably

lower proportion of their income on raising their kids.

A family earning $30,000 spent about $130 each week ­ or 23 per cent ­ on

their 10 to 14 year-old-child, compared with a weekly cost of $315 ­ or 13

per cent ­ for a family on a pre-tax income of $125,000.

Low-income families spent, on average, $55 per week on their first baby and

up to $213 on teenage children ­ between 10 and 38 per cent of their

pre-tax income.

Middle-income families spent between $95 and $305 on their children, between 8 and 25 per cent of their weekly income, ­and children of high-income earners cost between 7 and 11 per cent of the family budget.

Child-support payments might soon be based on the real cost of raising

childre"; "159";"abs";"Teachers fear abuse witch-hunt";"The Australian";"2003-11-17";"Dylan Welch";;"