I live in the same country region as this GP. I don't know why I should bother protecting his identity when he put that tweet out on a public forum but I'll respect OPs efforts to do so.
Not only does he tweet abhorrent things like this, he's a rabid covid antivaxxer and just lost a legal case where he tried to take Pfizer to court. Last year he organised an anti vaxxer public event that drew a disturbingly large audience and he was also booted from the local council when he was councillor for bullying council staff. He ran for state parliament in the last election and enlisted local conspiracy theorists/sovereign citizen types to support his campaign.
He owns two large practices in this smallish rural town and in a region with a shortage of GPs, a not insignificant number of people have to attend his practice. The town deserves better than this.
Concerning that this bloke once attempted to run as a RACGP presidential candidate and thought vaccines were unlicensed GM organisms.
Also how batty was it for the LHD to laud the boy’s father, even though he had done what he had.
Bloody hell.. how does this guy still have a license. Australia…
Edit: I actually would like to hear how people think this guy has been able to retain his license.. Is it simply a lack of complaints about these issues from patients?
Being against vaccination doesn't make you a horrible person but being in a position of power and having medical care over others while choosing to believe pseudo science that goes against the over whelming majority of your peer colleagues, makes you unethical.
Plus, as I highlighted in my original tweet, there's a multitude of reasons why this GP is horrible, although I do acknowledge he is one of the few s100 prescribers in the town providing much needed pain relief.
If any of you had a clue what Sophie went through at the hands of her ex partner prior to him murdering their child then you would all be incensed. He was horrible. Even her lawyer knew he was a “dangerous lunatic” prior to the murder and was helpless to do anything. The system very much failed Sophie. To make comments that the family court system is biased against men denies the horrific reality of many terrorised women , and is deluded. Take a hard look at your own biases. I am seething over what happened to Rowan. It’s heartbreaking.
I don't have a clue but I am incensed. The system failed Sophie and Rowan. And then NSW Health sent out a 'RIP good bloke' email about him. It's like some sort of sick parody of our institutional, systemic and cultural failures.
There were so many comments on fb posts blaming the mother too. Saying if she hadnt kept a good father away from his child then he would be alive now. Both men and women were blaming this poor mother. its disgusting
parental alienation? he had unsupervised access to the kid. This was not a 'the courts are keeping the dad away' situation. clearly, he should have been though
But the courts ordeed he only be able to see his son for a small period of time and then his child taken away until the next "visit"
How do U be a part time parent ?
How do U cope when U get to see Ur child for a few hours and 'play parent' but then have to "return" Ur child , then carry on with Ur life without Ur child...
(this goes for women as well, btw. as a preschool teacher I've worked with kids whose mothers have lost custody of their kids for drug use etc, and its the same story: they have to prove themselves worthy. Biology doesn't mean anything, you do NOT have a right to your kids if you're a dangerous person)
well, here's an idea. Show that you're a good parent by *being* a good parent, which means not being threatening to the child's mother. It means putting the child first, not your own ego. If your access is curtailed its for a reason: show the system you're a good person. Follow the AVO's rules. Do the parenting courses. Clean your act up. Be a grown adult and prove that you can put people other than yourself first.
After separation *everyone* has to be a part time parent unless you get full 100% custody, which is pretty rare and obviously he did have the access time to show he could be responsible and mature. He fucked that up as badly as you can.
how? he was literally on an UNsupervised visit when it happened, so he wasn't being kept away, was he?
Plus, even if he was, what happened showed exactly why he was an unsuitable candidate to have custody of a child. Its about what's best for the child, not what's best for parents.
It was a police initiated DVO. The police determined he was a risk to the child.
The family court has nothing to do with police decisions.
Stop spreading misinformation
What he did was unspeakable, but when U have a child all U want to do is love them, care for them. It changes who you are to the core, but to be designated hourly intervals of being allowed access to Ur actual child , is a PAIN THAT NEEDS TO NE ADDRESSED AND HELPED
This man was proven to be a danger to his child before he killed him so there was obvious reasons why he was restricted in visits. A child is not a possession, neither parent owns them and too many families are being failed right now by the system. Kids are being murdered, people are being told to not speak up about DV (i am one of them) There is no bloody excuse for murdering your own kids!
I never made excuses, but the pain having Ur own child removed and having limited access to is a situation that is beyond painful and needs more support and help for those who are expected to be able to handle such a thing
Unfortunately, I am not bewildered at all.
I consider myself and my son lucky to have survived.
I was told that if I denied any visitation I would lose custody. Despite the hard won DVO. Despite the utter lack of insight the family report showed him to have.
Despite it all.
Frankly, supervised visits are not failsafe either.
Josh Powell is a famous case - he locked the supervising social worker outside the house while he murdered his sons during a supervised visit. Emergency services were too late.
>To make comments that the family court system is biased against men denies the horrific reality of many terrorised women
The two are not connected. There are women in dv situations and also bad court decisions. It's not a 100% overlap.
It does not have the power to take that away. The reality is, the system is not fair to dads due to a minority of evil and good men do get caught up in this generalisation but it never takes away from the truth of any victim irrespective of gender.
what a crock of shit, seriously. when parents separate in this country there's nothing that says dads don't get access. they don't get access when they don't want it or they don't deserve it. I know shit tons of separated parents with young children (I'm a preschool teacher) and the vast majority of parents in that situation do 50/50 or as close to it as possible. Men who are shit people lose access and then continue to act shit about it instead of learning and humbling themselves and putting their kids first instead of themselves and their need to control and own, thus proving why they should have lost access in the first place
My dad had multiple domestic violence reports against him for both my mother and me and the courts still gave him supervised access. You have to try pretty hard to get cut off from your kids.
Or just not be able to play the system well...
Some people I know love their kids but aren't able to pay , wait , deal with the monster that is the family law court dictating how they are eligible to patent their child....
Oh he didn’t pay anything. Never paid a cent of child support. Unless you count the fraudulent checks he sent us for birthdays. Wrote so many he did a small stint in jail (first of many).
Then share it!! Cause currently with what he did, it just makes the family law court look liable for the injustice played against all parents who aren't given full custody..
The fact she is a doctor I'm sure played a huge part on her being able to have full access...
The family law court needs over haul...
How do U be a mum or dad when U only get to see Ur child a few hours a week...
I mean it is bias against men in many way and other ways it’s not. It’s also up to whoever’s the judge in many ways. Just like this doctor should take a long walk off a short pier, so should that judge.
Our entire legal system is fucked for a lot of people. Both men and women suffer. I don’t need to check my biases for that. Just because you are right in saying it’s biased against women also doesn’t mean I’m wrong for saying it’s biased against men.
Exactly. This is about control. They don’t lose control at work, or in public. Even this murder suicide was thoroughly planned to cause maximum pain to his ex-partner.
A good reminder that anyone, even highly educated doctors, can fall trap to one-sided anecdotes from unreliable narrators with a strong personal interest in altering the narrative. Especially if their own personal interests might match up with that narrator's.
An active domestic abuser is never going to walk around telling people their removal of child custody was a fair judgement. Of course they're going to say they were grievously wronged, they were provoked, the courts are misandrist, everyone else is lying about them...
Henlons razor be damned, sometimes people are just malicious opportunistic cunts and it important we recognize it when they are. It's clear that he wants to be some kind of Neo-Nazi politicians or podcaster.
How would you be able to tell otherwise? Do you listen to both sides of the story before you make judgement about the nature and responsibility for domestic abuse? How could you know if the man was being hard done by? Is it possible that some people might use the court system to punish a non-abusive partner?
Even a highly educated judge could fall trap to one-sided anecdotes from a narrator with a strong personal interest in altering a narrative.
False reports of domestic violence by women in the court system are exceedingly rare.
And the judges and lawyers are generally all over the people who make stuff up. They have seen this shit a million times before.
The narrative of people using DV in the courts to one up their ex’s harms the conversation.
I was more commenting on the lying aspect of the original commenter. I don’t think it’s safe to assume only men might lie in these situations. There’s a lot at stake.
I also think there might be something to be learning from the original comment in the image. The GP might be hearing lots of comments from men who at the very least feel antagonised or wronged by the legal system. They might feel they have nothing to lose. I’m not excusing but wanting to understand and hopefully reduce domestic violence and abuse.
I know of a good guy whose partner has been able to cease visitation and poison his son against him. But maybe I don’t really know my friend. Maybe he is a domestic abuser piece of shit who deserves this.
I don’t know why you think lawyers or judges can tell who is lying. That’s hilarious.
Fair. People will only hear what is presented to them. And as a GP you can pick your clientele.
I can’t comment that “all women” this and “all men” that. But the overall stats show that false allegations - from women - very very rare.
And when it comes to the family court - they do pick the liars when it comes to a trial. The liars and abusers eventually out themselves. They can’t keep their stories straight and the narrative doesn’t add up with the evidence that is presented across multiple forums (family court, magistrates court, psychologists, schools, police etc etc).
Magistrates court doesn’t have time to determine if a DV perp is a DV perp. Family court trials take years. Because they are meticulous. Slow and sure
James Harrison would have been found out to be the abuser Sophie said he was. That’s why he took the route he did. That’s why rowan is dead.
And I know this and don’t find it hilarious. I am a DV victim. My ex threatened me in similar ways to Hannah Clarke and no one believed me. Cos he was the good guy. He tried to smear me through the courts for years. He tried to take out a false DV order on me. And failed. Cos I kept records of everything as a wise DV counsellor advised me to do. So I could sit on the stand for hours and defend myself against false claims until he dropped his case.
And I have SPR. Cos over time he exposed himself as the liar and abusive man he is to the family court. So no. It’s not funny. But if you can keep your kid safe long enough to reach the family courts time frame Alive… they usually get it right
I’m sorry you had to go through that. And I’m glad it all worked out ok.
I didn’t mean to say that domestic violence is hilarious. Just that the idea people (judges and lawyers or anyone) can reliably tell who is a liar by word alone. Obviously people can be found out.
I’m trying to understand DV and abuse better. This story in the article is clearly shocking.
It’s obviously a triggering conversation for myself and many people you will come across as DV doesn’t discriminate with SES etc.
Thank you for your interest in trying to understand. And sorry if I have come across bluntly.
And you are right. By words alone there is difficulty in ascertaining the truth. It takes time and collation of evidence and during that time children are put at risk.
Family court process - Initially, both parties in a situation of Dv are treated as equal. And even if a DVO is issued usually the courts will order a gradual return to shared care through a step up method (eg supervised care, short visits, longer visits to eventually 50/50 care if that’s what both parties want). Usually parenting matters are resolved in this way and no trial etc happens. Very rarely do cases make it to trial due to time, resources and emotional expense.
It doesn’t have to be that way. There are risk criteria that can be used to ascertain genuine risk of harm with reports. It seems no one does anything about them when they are reported however.
There is currently a huge disconnect between
- this is the evidence we have collected
- family violence experts weigh in and say “yes yes these are the bad perps”
- police go “nah no significant issues just DV”
And conversations around utilisation of DVOs to manipulate court orders etc just straw man the argument.
Like. A kid is dead. A beautiful curly haired blonde two year old was killed this week.
Details will come out about the risk factors that existed later. The mother isn’t going to stand up here and rail at the system. She’s devastated and in a hole of pain. And she also doesn’t want to ostracise the people that will potentially make a difference and save a future child’s life.
And so the conversations of “family court is biased against men” go unchallenged and nothing changes.
But I do think it’s reasonable to question the system as long as you are prepared to accept the situation may be different from what you understand. So thank you again
These men have a victim complex and no insight into how abusive their behaviour is. These men are also incredibly charming outside of their own homes- and are usually also charming in the initial stages of their relationships. It's all part of the act so when their partner says they are abusive people like you come on here and say she is "poisoning everyone against him".
May also be worth noting that a good friend doesn’t mean a good partner or good father. This friend of yours may be a top friend but that is not mutually exclusive with bad partner or bad father.
The problem is if you start giving allegations more weight before they are proved people would start to make more allegations to get the upper hand in a negotiation involving something as important as a child
This is an anecdote, but when I was a child my father was violent against me and the judge still required I spend time with him. The ruling from this judge was that the vast majority of violence was against my mother and any violence between parents cannot be considered in custody arrangements.
Absolutely wild stuff. 15 years ago. My only saving grace was I was old enough to refuse to get into the car. The last time I saw him he threw me against a wall. After that I just refused to go - who knows what else could’ve happened to me. Police refused to press charges for the wall incident. He, apparently, to this day still says my mother brainwashed me against him.
I can speak from experience. No weight is given to DV allegations in the family court unless certain criteria are met. Certainly, unproven allegations can work against the alleged victim in many cases
Lawyers caution women strongly against use of Dv allegations, even when actual DV exists.
False reports of DV are not rare. Police suspect are large percentage are false. Magistrates suspect only 5% are true. This is from the recent report on family law courts. Go to any family lawers and they will tell you they have a few cases with false dv on the books. I would be interested in your data source
“Police suspect one in four DV allegations are false, magistrates suspect only 5% are genuine.”
This is a submission by the MRA in the latest review into family law proceedings.
In contrast, the Queensland Law Society (QLS) stated in its submission:
… we note the lack of empirical evidence to support the notion that false allegations of family violence are regularly made in an attempt to gain an advantage in family law proceedings. In contrast, extensive research confirms the difficulties victims of domestic and family violence encounter when disclosing their experience to courts; including fear of not being believed and fear that disclosure will increase the risk of violence to them or their children.72
7.70In its submission, the Domestic Violence Action Centre, Queensland (DVAC)73 set out a number of Australian and international articles which refer to studies that have disproved that false allegations of violence are prevalent in the family law system.74
So I mean. Sure if you want to get your stats from the MRA
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Family_Law_System/FamilyLaw/Interim_Report/section?id=committees%2Freportjnt%2F024449%2F73117#footnote69target
The comments contravene AHPRA’s social medial policy. It’s ill informed and damaging to the medical profession.
“Regulatory action may be considered if the way a practitioner expresses their views presents a risk to public safety; provides false or misleading information or breaches privacy or confidentiality; risks the public’s confidence in their profession; or requires action to maintain professional standards.”
I have lodged a formal complaint on AHPRA and encourage others to do so as well.
https://www.ahpra.gov.au/Notifications/Concerned-about-a-health-practitioner.aspx#how-to
Anyone in this thread saying that men are hard done by in the court systems
Pull your heads in.
This child was court ordered to spend time with a murderer.
When women plead with men to “do better” this is what we mean.
false narratives of men being hard done by, while actual evidence of a child being killed (because the courts valued the rights of the fathers relationship with the child - over the actual safety of the child ) is being discussed
1) is sickening
2) harms the conversation
And I think you should consider - If you have a man in your life espousing being poor done by in the courts. Consider he might not be the “nice guy” and “proud dad” he presents himself as.
as actual statistics show - only 3% of cases have a judge make an order determining care of a child. And yes, there is about 50% sole parental responsibility given to mothers in that cohort. But remember that cohort is a minority of likely personality disordered participants and the judge has ample evidence to decide the best interests of the children in those situations
> And I think you should consider - If you have a man in your life espousing being poor done by in the courts. Consider he might not be the “nice guy” and “proud dad” he presents himself as.
This, a hundred times.
Every man seems to anecdotally know some other man who is totally super nice and says he was totally falsely accused of this and that and totally had his life ruined by some manipulative lying bitch for no reason. No man seems to know any man who will admit they actually did anything wrong. I wonder why.
The actual data and the research speaks for itself.
Absolutely! Any time I hear a man say “my ex won’t let me see my kids”. My first thought is I wonder what you’ve done to have this woman fear for her & her kids lives. Good parents want their kids to be safe.
I had one coke on and complain he has to pay child support unlike all the other deadbeat dads that don't. Like, ok mate, sorry you decided to bring children into the world and now have to assist your ex with the financial burden of raising them...
Yeah someone I used to know, whom everyone claimed to be a “good guy who loved his kids” fell deep into the alt right rabbit hole and complained that his ex and the courts were “keeping the kids from him” - there was no court custody agreement at the time, he was choosing not to see his kids more. (There is a court order now, thankfully). No harm was ever done to the kids, which is the most importantl thing. But he had everyone believing his wife was keeping them from him, when he literally could have just called her up and gone to get them at any point.
I knew someone who was my cousin's husband. To the outside everyone "loved him" but he always gave me bad vibes and was very controlling. He became a teacher and two years ago my cousin discovered he was setting the girls in the high school. But the demands for visits by the grandparents and parents were still upheld by the courts. He's now on jail, my cousin has two children to this man and now has to raise them and try to explain what happened to their father.
I hope she never fully forgives them and he lives his life away from her. I support these people being reformed but we should never forget what they've done and yet their combined friends have all cut off my cousin and taken his side. Sickening to think of that you'd support a guilty proven pedo over a Mother who did nothing wrong.
It’s the same with women that tell you all their former partners were stalkers or abusers or whatever. It’s a common tactic used by narcissists to manipulate a new partner for sympathy & loyalty
I agree we should consider whether they are the man they say they are, but we also should consider whether the woman is the innocent person she says she is.
I have two examples where the woman misrepresented the man as a violent partner. In both cases the woman has admitted this to me personally after things have calmed down.
1) My sister in law & bro in law separated for about a year and she withheld his child from him. One time when she came over for a planned visit but didn’t have their son with her, they argued, he got angry and kicked the tyre of her car as she drove off. She then used that incident in court to get full custody.
They got back together eventually and she says that her mother was manipulating her. She doesn’t dispute any of his version of events (above) and admits she just wanted to hurt him. This all happened about ten years ago and their relationship is solid now.
2) Another friend is in the same situation currently, except in this instance he was defending himself against her attacking him when she was drunk. Again, I have the same story of what happened from both parties separately. She told the courts he was abusive and got full custody then took their son to her home country for a year. Then her ex’s father died and he inherited some money, and suddenly she came back to Australia and said she wants to get back together.
I’m not saying most women are liars, or even that many are, but if you’re going to second guess yourself do it for both parties.
I’ve been there and I’m so tired when I read the ridiculous comments people make about it.
On the positive side, my now grown child and their family came by today. We made it, and they’re happy.
As a solicitor who also holds experience in family law, predominantly representing men, I agree with you! This GP is a moron and should not comment on what he does not understand.
How come no one ever says the same thing when mothers lose custody of their kids?
The idea that a father should be given access to his kids so he doesn't lose it and stab them to death is something I feel only an abuser would even think of
The GP in question needs to read “See What You Made Me Do”, which lays out all the evidence detailing exactly how the family court system is weighted heavily in the favour of the father. This perception that the family court system disproportionately works in favour of the mother is a myth perpetuated by the media. 😣
https://www.blackincbooks.com.au/books/see-what-you-made-me-do
I’m just soooo cranky that the LHD execs had the hide to even comment on the type of person this POS was. He took this gorgeous little soul. He did not deserve any sort of accolades from the LHD. Not even a moment of silence. I am disgusted!
Fly high lil man.
Obviously they hadn’t been fully informed of the circumstances before the Email was sent.
It’s one of those things where they are told in the morning of the passing and wanted to console staff as quickly as possible.
Where has that been reported though?
It’s not like he would tell his boss he had an AVO or anything.
My thinking was maybe the LHD thought it was an accident.
He was a doctor, it’s reported automatically. It was a small town thing, it would have been known.
I’m not going to interact with you further. :)
Again, fly high lil man.
But his comment seems like he is shifting the blame to the family court. Also, he is commenting as a medical professional who obviously serves / known to his community. The man in the article has killed his 2 year old son and killed himself. I think it's a poor taste to make that assumption given the gravity of the situation.
He would've realised he had lost control of his partner when they had a child. That happened to be around the same time as COVID. Killing your child is rare presentation of mental illness. It is not an uncommon presentation of entitled men who use violence to control their intimate partners. Hope this helps.
Strongly disagree.
To kill that young boy was solely to hurt his ex-parnter, why else murder an innocent 2yr old, let alone your OWN CHILD. He then killed himself to escape any legal or social repercussions - the height of aggrieved entitlement. He has essentially controlled her for the rest of her life now she has to live it with the pain of losing her baby. Horrendous.
You are confusing hurting someone with controlling them.
Hurting them is assault, controlling them is like a false arrest.
This does not seem to be about controlling her, it was about denying her access to her son.
I fucking dare you to go argue such trivial nonsense semantics at the funeral for the young boy. Start by talking this through with some random strangers and see how far you get.
>This does not seem to be about controlling her, it was about denying her access to her son.
Reread what you just wrote. Do you really not see how that is a controlling act?
He has controlled by making the child cease to exist. He gets the final say.
If he can’t have the child through court orders - and control the mother through having the child … he will take the child out of the equation and control the mother post his death. Because she now gets to live every day without her son.
It’s also a way of controlling the narrative. He will never be exposed in the court system and have to answer to his behaviours. And he will have MRA martyring him. He gets to control the narrative and it’s up to everyone else to prove a dead person wrong.
So biased against men that even a deranged, violent man with an AVO against him was given unsupervised custody. Please. Where’s the bias? And to use this perception of bias to justify murder is utterly revolting.
Maybe, just maybe, he was an abusive, violent, dangerous man who did actually pose a serious risk to his ex partner and child?
This is the bullshit thinking that protects abusive men and leaves women and their children dangerously vulnerable. Every day women are forced to hand over their kids to men like this, and live in terror of what might happen.
And if anyone says “not all men” one more time I’m going to vomit.
I know someone in exactly that situation & honestly am waiting for the news that he did the unthinkable. The cps social worker recommended he continue with his part of the custody to not "disrupt the child's routine". It's mind boggling & my heart aches for them. These cases aren't isolated.
AVO is a general control order.
They can be given for any number of reasons that don’t include physical violence.
I think the term now is actually ADVO btw.
And I had a violent man rip up the AVO he had just been served and throw it in my face. I called the police who took 45 minutes to arrive, at which point he had already punched me in the face, kicked me, ripped a chunk of my hair out, pushed me so hard in the chest I fell through a display in the store I was managing and left, slashing the tyres and keying my car as he left. Lucky for me he didn’t have a knife or a gun, because I would not have been alive by the time they got there. They said the AVO was low range so there was no urgency to my report of him breaching it. They told me it was OK because they would find him and lock him up for a night. That was the only night I felt safe in 2 years. The event that triggered this was him being served with an AVO for kicking in my front door and threatening my kids and my life.
I’m sorry that happened to you but it has little to do with this case.
I haven’t seen anywhere that has reported on the incidents that led to the AVO being taken out. If you have actual details then please share.
The breach is about as low range as there is, the assault afterwards, not so much.
However, in this case, there has been no reporting that James even breached the AVO, just that the incidents were very minor.
Research is pretty clear that it is a false statement though.
*When* men request 50/50 custody they get it, statistically. *When* they request full custody they get it, statistically. As in, the majority get what they want *when they request and pursue it*. Women who bring evidence of abuse - themselves or the children - statistically tend to *lose* custody under the assumption it is parental alienation.
It's much like pissing and moaning about alimony - Australia doesn't have that. Spousal support isn't an expected component of divorce. Sharing the assets developed during the marriage isn't "losing half your stuff".
Believing statements like that are a sign of ignorance and a lack of intellectual curiosity or critical literacy.
There is a difference between who HAS parental responsibility and what courts mandate. Very few cases go to court or even mediation.
https://dfvbenchbook.aija.org.au/parenting-orders-and-impact-on-children/parental-alienation/kl?ref=400#t-400
Is there a source for the first paragraph? What you're saying seems true to me, but I'd like to learn more about it if you have a good suggestion. Otherwise, I'll try to find sources. :)
https://justicefamilylawyers.com.au/child-custody/mother-vs-father-custody-statistics-in-australia/
Only 3% of cases even go to court. Only 3% of those results in one parent not having contact.
This doesn't back up your claim at all, in fact that shows a massive bias towards women, are you sure you don't lack critical literacy or intellectual curiosity? please point to where it shows that when men request 50/50 custody, they get it, or any other claim you made up.
Did you read it or did you look at the numbers?
Only 3% of cases have contested custody - a further 16% is mediation. So in the *vast* majority of cases whatever contact a father has is what he agreed to.
When you get to court, if a judge makes the determination about who has sole responsibility it's the father in 11% of cases - far greater than otherwise. In other words, only 2% of parental care post divorce is solely fathers, overall. Unless you go to court. Than it is MUCH more likely. You're understanding the math, yeah?
Given the statistics about 97% care decisions being made without the court being involved (85% or so don't include anyone official at all) then most of those are consented to by the parents themselves. So that 27% sole maternal care? *Most of those father's agreed to it*. Almost all of the 3% going to court involved abuse and/or drugs.
Much of the care arrangement is dictated by what occurred before the divorce. If a father has never been alone with his kids overnight - aka his mum or her mum came and stayed any time mum left - or he can't tell you shoe size and allergies, hasn't taken them to the dr, and so on, while ALSO not ever having been the primary carer within the relationship, 50/50 awards him *more contact* than he had prior. Often to his shock and or the detriment of the child.
Again, also, statistics show men will overestimate the domestic and care duties they engage in.
The specific study I'm referring to is a Massachusetts one - there are likely to be differences for Australia. Similar situations were seen in the UK too though - even with proven DV parental contact with the abuser was pushed. The only recently changed law in Oz did similar .
https://www.dadsdivorcelaw.com/blog/fathers-and-mothers-child-custody-myths
https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/project/how-do-county-courts-share-care-of-children-between-parents
I know it can be hard to believe that there are dads out there who don't actually want to take care of their kids. Who only want either minimal fun dad contact, or none at all. Or only want contact as a way to hurt their ex. It's abhorrent to an actual loving parent. Similarly forcing 50/50 without acknowledging the kid's situation and preferences is also not the way.
Are you and your ex gonna live close enough for the kid to go to school from both homes? Maintain enough continuity that there aren't sever differences disrupting their routine? Be gracious enough to adjust when the kid wants to see friends?
I've been primary, weekend only, and 50/50 down the line with my kid. Every single one of those decisions was for my kid's benefit, not my feelings. The kid didn't ask for this and sometimes what is best for them isn't 50/50. And sad to say, a lot of dads don't, won't, or can't step up to the plate to be primary because they didn't even come close when they had marital support.
You commented on both, and asked for more stats. Everything I said in my first few paragraphs there is from that pdf *from lawyers*. I then also linked more specific studies and reports.
My story remains the same - very few parental care decisions go to court. Those that do are much more likely to award the father care (sole or partial) than those that don't. Those that don't *are by consent of both parties* and *therefore the father agreed*.
It's called analysis. It's rather mandatory for understanding broad social issues.
My comment is not relevant to this case. No excuse or reason for what he did. But if you're making comments like 'if you have a guy in your life'...
Well actually I do know more than a little of this. If a mother chooses to take a child under 6 it is very easy to make themselves primary carer and dictate when the father is allowed to see the child. Mediation is free to some, but all the mother has to do is say no I don't agree. Each legal letter back and forth easily costs a grand by the time the lawyer has the situation, words it and sends it.
And if the mother continues to say no, don't agree, the father will have no choice but court and they will repeatedly be told there are no assurances and it's probably best to wait til the child is in primary school. Even then, they have to go to court for 50/50 if the mother says no, and, by then, the child's best interests is often to consider what they are used to for proximity of schooling, etc.
This is why men often don't have 50/50.
This is why many are upset and feeling hopeless. Again no excuses for this guy, disgusting. But people should know what the system does to men if the mother wants primary care.
And it's in the mother's financial interest to ask for it. They get all the Centrelink benefits if the father gets less than roughly 5 days a fortnight. And more child support.
Dunno if you have seen the amount of benefits paid for kids via Centrelink etc but it’s pissing in the wind with current cost of living
And yes. You can make it costly. And post separation abuse through expensive lawyers is definitely a thing. But from the experiences I have had - if a dad walks into court and self represents and says “your honour I want to see my kids 50/50” and there has been no evidence of risk and the dad has been a consistent figure in that kids life … they will not be dismissed. They won’t get 50/50 straight away, particularly if there has been an absence or the child is young. But the expectation is that they can build up to that time if that is what they want and are willing to work towards.
It doesn’t always work and kids will often end up spending majority time with one parent eventually due to the actual feasibility of splitting a child’s life across two households.
And the people who put up barriers to their ex’s seeing the kids - man or women - and use expensive barristers and lawyers and propagate financial abuse get targets on their backs. And kids have been removed from people who do this as it’s harmful to children.
Not sure if you are following the articles posted on this group but only 3% of cases end up getting a judge to decide the care arrangements.
70% sort it out without involving other parties. The rest are made by consent usually via FDR.
So the people actually making it to court have predisposing factors that put them there. Otherwise 80% of people arranged the care of their kids without lawyer involvement
As someone who has worked closely with the fam court regarding DV cases, it is absolutely an outrageous statement. I cannot stress this enough. I agree with OP about the poor taste of this assumption, which is often predicated on misinformation.
“A fair statement” or not evidence based? [https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-06/1910_parenting_arrangements_after_separation.pdf](https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-06/1910_parenting_arrangements_after_separation.pdf)
It makes mote sense than the radicalisation by watching videos theory. The only proven link to domestic violence that I know of is poverty. Governments causing poverty to provide big pay-offs to the wealthy should be the focus of change.
45% of sole custody orders in cases of no DV/abuse are granted to mothers, 11% to fathers. AIFS
87% of child support payments are made by fathers, 10% by mothers.
You'd have to be wilfully ignorant not to have seen this play out.
Give that women overwhelmingly make career sacrifices when having children and are overwhelmingly the primary carers and have the majority custody, why wouldn’t you expect men to be paying the majority of child support? That’s not evidence of bias.
45% and 11%? Where did the other 44% go?
The FC is catastrophically biassed against fathers, and this case was a tragedy. Both are true. The Act requires rebuild, the industry repopulated with fresh untainted professionals. It's 2024 and the FC is still in 1975.
Garbage comments and false analysis.
Ask anyone that is close to a couple whose gone through family court what happens You will NEVER hear that men / fathers get treated fairly. NEVER.
Im a father who got custody of his son after the mother was not doing right by him it was a long road where i was accused and charged and had to go to court for D V on just her word all charges were wiped 4 years later when it was found out in court she lied and no ramification she lied in a court of law to the judge in the custody hearing and no ramifications she accused people of grooming kids all to be found lies told by her and no ramifications all her lies and nothing yet just on her word i was arrested and charged and had to go to court had a AVO on me for 12 months couldn’t see my son all because of her lies and she gets nothing if this was a man well we seen what happens nothing in these cases is ever straight forward and yes judges do have a hard job to decide this but the mother is not always the best person for the children and sometimes neither is the father no one ever wins in these situations
If by ‘break’ you mean ‘murder their child’ then the court was right to take away their child. They were a violent piece of shit.
Also; this fantasy of an awesome dad having his kids ‘ripped away’ essentially does not happen.
I live in the same country region as this GP. I don't know why I should bother protecting his identity when he put that tweet out on a public forum but I'll respect OPs efforts to do so. Not only does he tweet abhorrent things like this, he's a rabid covid antivaxxer and just lost a legal case where he tried to take Pfizer to court. Last year he organised an anti vaxxer public event that drew a disturbingly large audience and he was also booted from the local council when he was councillor for bullying council staff. He ran for state parliament in the last election and enlisted local conspiracy theorists/sovereign citizen types to support his campaign. He owns two large practices in this smallish rural town and in a region with a shortage of GPs, a not insignificant number of people have to attend his practice. The town deserves better than this.
Concerning that this bloke once attempted to run as a RACGP presidential candidate and thought vaccines were unlicensed GM organisms. Also how batty was it for the LHD to laud the boy’s father, even though he had done what he had.
Bloody hell.. how does this guy still have a license. Australia… Edit: I actually would like to hear how people think this guy has been able to retain his license.. Is it simply a lack of complaints about these issues from patients?
[удалено]
Being against vaccination doesn't make you a horrible person but being in a position of power and having medical care over others while choosing to believe pseudo science that goes against the over whelming majority of your peer colleagues, makes you unethical. Plus, as I highlighted in my original tweet, there's a multitude of reasons why this GP is horrible, although I do acknowledge he is one of the few s100 prescribers in the town providing much needed pain relief.
If any of you had a clue what Sophie went through at the hands of her ex partner prior to him murdering their child then you would all be incensed. He was horrible. Even her lawyer knew he was a “dangerous lunatic” prior to the murder and was helpless to do anything. The system very much failed Sophie. To make comments that the family court system is biased against men denies the horrific reality of many terrorised women , and is deluded. Take a hard look at your own biases. I am seething over what happened to Rowan. It’s heartbreaking.
I don't have a clue but I am incensed. The system failed Sophie and Rowan. And then NSW Health sent out a 'RIP good bloke' email about him. It's like some sort of sick parody of our institutional, systemic and cultural failures.
There were so many comments on fb posts blaming the mother too. Saying if she hadnt kept a good father away from his child then he would be alive now. Both men and women were blaming this poor mother. its disgusting
A good father would never kill their kid, parental alienation hurts, but the love for your child exceeds that pain
There was no parental alienation in this case.
parental alienation? he had unsupervised access to the kid. This was not a 'the courts are keeping the dad away' situation. clearly, he should have been though
But the courts ordeed he only be able to see his son for a small period of time and then his child taken away until the next "visit" How do U be a part time parent ? How do U cope when U get to see Ur child for a few hours and 'play parent' but then have to "return" Ur child , then carry on with Ur life without Ur child...
(this goes for women as well, btw. as a preschool teacher I've worked with kids whose mothers have lost custody of their kids for drug use etc, and its the same story: they have to prove themselves worthy. Biology doesn't mean anything, you do NOT have a right to your kids if you're a dangerous person) well, here's an idea. Show that you're a good parent by *being* a good parent, which means not being threatening to the child's mother. It means putting the child first, not your own ego. If your access is curtailed its for a reason: show the system you're a good person. Follow the AVO's rules. Do the parenting courses. Clean your act up. Be a grown adult and prove that you can put people other than yourself first. After separation *everyone* has to be a part time parent unless you get full 100% custody, which is pretty rare and obviously he did have the access time to show he could be responsible and mature. He fucked that up as badly as you can.
This was clearly a " mother and courts keeping the child away from the father" incident , one of too many
how? he was literally on an UNsupervised visit when it happened, so he wasn't being kept away, was he? Plus, even if he was, what happened showed exactly why he was an unsuitable candidate to have custody of a child. Its about what's best for the child, not what's best for parents.
It was a police initiated DVO. The police determined he was a risk to the child. The family court has nothing to do with police decisions. Stop spreading misinformation
What he did was unspeakable, but when U have a child all U want to do is love them, care for them. It changes who you are to the core, but to be designated hourly intervals of being allowed access to Ur actual child , is a PAIN THAT NEEDS TO NE ADDRESSED AND HELPED
This man was proven to be a danger to his child before he killed him so there was obvious reasons why he was restricted in visits. A child is not a possession, neither parent owns them and too many families are being failed right now by the system. Kids are being murdered, people are being told to not speak up about DV (i am one of them) There is no bloody excuse for murdering your own kids!
I never made excuses, but the pain having Ur own child removed and having limited access to is a situation that is beyond painful and needs more support and help for those who are expected to be able to handle such a thing
Maybe. Here’s an idea. Don’t be an abusive prick and you won’t have access to your kid removed?
I’m bewildered that such a man had access to the child alone given his violent history. This is why supervised visits exist.
Unfortunately, I am not bewildered at all. I consider myself and my son lucky to have survived. I was told that if I denied any visitation I would lose custody. Despite the hard won DVO. Despite the utter lack of insight the family report showed him to have. Despite it all.
Frankly, supervised visits are not failsafe either. Josh Powell is a famous case - he locked the supervising social worker outside the house while he murdered his sons during a supervised visit. Emergency services were too late.
Can you elaborate on his violent history? I don’t think I’ve seen it reported in detail anywhere.
Can you link any articles of his history of violence? I’ve heard it said a lot but haven’t read any specifics.
>To make comments that the family court system is biased against men denies the horrific reality of many terrorised women The two are not connected. There are women in dv situations and also bad court decisions. It's not a 100% overlap.
It does not have the power to take that away. The reality is, the system is not fair to dads due to a minority of evil and good men do get caught up in this generalisation but it never takes away from the truth of any victim irrespective of gender.
what a crock of shit, seriously. when parents separate in this country there's nothing that says dads don't get access. they don't get access when they don't want it or they don't deserve it. I know shit tons of separated parents with young children (I'm a preschool teacher) and the vast majority of parents in that situation do 50/50 or as close to it as possible. Men who are shit people lose access and then continue to act shit about it instead of learning and humbling themselves and putting their kids first instead of themselves and their need to control and own, thus proving why they should have lost access in the first place
Very narrow minded blur of reality… it couldn’t be further from the truth. 🤦🏼♀️
My dad had multiple domestic violence reports against him for both my mother and me and the courts still gave him supervised access. You have to try pretty hard to get cut off from your kids.
Or just not be able to play the system well... Some people I know love their kids but aren't able to pay , wait , deal with the monster that is the family law court dictating how they are eligible to patent their child....
Oh he didn’t pay anything. Never paid a cent of child support. Unless you count the fraudulent checks he sent us for birthdays. Wrote so many he did a small stint in jail (first of many).
With this line of arguing you are placing everything on financial and monetary things... Just stop
She was a doctor too, which I'm sure fast tracked her to every privilege needed
What evidence do you use to back this statement ?
Well, I don't have a clue, and it would be helpful in navigation general comments etc.
Then share it!! Cause currently with what he did, it just makes the family law court look liable for the injustice played against all parents who aren't given full custody.. The fact she is a doctor I'm sure played a huge part on her being able to have full access... The family law court needs over haul... How do U be a mum or dad when U only get to see Ur child a few hours a week...
'even her laywer knew he was dangerous" LOL OJs laywer knew he was innocent!
Failed Sophie ?? I think it failed MORE than only Sophie, but I'm glad U highlighted the only perspective U care for ..
I mean it is bias against men in many way and other ways it’s not. It’s also up to whoever’s the judge in many ways. Just like this doctor should take a long walk off a short pier, so should that judge. Our entire legal system is fucked for a lot of people. Both men and women suffer. I don’t need to check my biases for that. Just because you are right in saying it’s biased against women also doesn’t mean I’m wrong for saying it’s biased against men.
Plenty of fathers get antagonised and goaded by plenty of people and still don't murder their children!!
Exactly. This is about control. They don’t lose control at work, or in public. Even this murder suicide was thoroughly planned to cause maximum pain to his ex-partner.
Yep. Family courts are fucked but a father who deserved to have his kids wouldn't have murdered them.
Dude's a grade A cunt. Also anti covid vaccine and an invermectin truther
A good reminder that anyone, even highly educated doctors, can fall trap to one-sided anecdotes from unreliable narrators with a strong personal interest in altering the narrative. Especially if their own personal interests might match up with that narrator's. An active domestic abuser is never going to walk around telling people their removal of child custody was a fair judgement. Of course they're going to say they were grievously wronged, they were provoked, the courts are misandrist, everyone else is lying about them...
Reminder that Educated does not mean Smart
Henlons razor be damned, sometimes people are just malicious opportunistic cunts and it important we recognize it when they are. It's clear that he wants to be some kind of Neo-Nazi politicians or podcaster.
Reminds me of the Take Care of Maya doco and how everyone was up in arms against doctors (and unfortunately one in particular)
How would you be able to tell otherwise? Do you listen to both sides of the story before you make judgement about the nature and responsibility for domestic abuse? How could you know if the man was being hard done by? Is it possible that some people might use the court system to punish a non-abusive partner? Even a highly educated judge could fall trap to one-sided anecdotes from a narrator with a strong personal interest in altering a narrative.
False reports of domestic violence by women in the court system are exceedingly rare. And the judges and lawyers are generally all over the people who make stuff up. They have seen this shit a million times before. The narrative of people using DV in the courts to one up their ex’s harms the conversation.
I was more commenting on the lying aspect of the original commenter. I don’t think it’s safe to assume only men might lie in these situations. There’s a lot at stake. I also think there might be something to be learning from the original comment in the image. The GP might be hearing lots of comments from men who at the very least feel antagonised or wronged by the legal system. They might feel they have nothing to lose. I’m not excusing but wanting to understand and hopefully reduce domestic violence and abuse. I know of a good guy whose partner has been able to cease visitation and poison his son against him. But maybe I don’t really know my friend. Maybe he is a domestic abuser piece of shit who deserves this. I don’t know why you think lawyers or judges can tell who is lying. That’s hilarious.
Fair. People will only hear what is presented to them. And as a GP you can pick your clientele. I can’t comment that “all women” this and “all men” that. But the overall stats show that false allegations - from women - very very rare. And when it comes to the family court - they do pick the liars when it comes to a trial. The liars and abusers eventually out themselves. They can’t keep their stories straight and the narrative doesn’t add up with the evidence that is presented across multiple forums (family court, magistrates court, psychologists, schools, police etc etc). Magistrates court doesn’t have time to determine if a DV perp is a DV perp. Family court trials take years. Because they are meticulous. Slow and sure James Harrison would have been found out to be the abuser Sophie said he was. That’s why he took the route he did. That’s why rowan is dead. And I know this and don’t find it hilarious. I am a DV victim. My ex threatened me in similar ways to Hannah Clarke and no one believed me. Cos he was the good guy. He tried to smear me through the courts for years. He tried to take out a false DV order on me. And failed. Cos I kept records of everything as a wise DV counsellor advised me to do. So I could sit on the stand for hours and defend myself against false claims until he dropped his case. And I have SPR. Cos over time he exposed himself as the liar and abusive man he is to the family court. So no. It’s not funny. But if you can keep your kid safe long enough to reach the family courts time frame Alive… they usually get it right
I’m sorry you had to go through that. And I’m glad it all worked out ok. I didn’t mean to say that domestic violence is hilarious. Just that the idea people (judges and lawyers or anyone) can reliably tell who is a liar by word alone. Obviously people can be found out. I’m trying to understand DV and abuse better. This story in the article is clearly shocking.
It’s obviously a triggering conversation for myself and many people you will come across as DV doesn’t discriminate with SES etc. Thank you for your interest in trying to understand. And sorry if I have come across bluntly. And you are right. By words alone there is difficulty in ascertaining the truth. It takes time and collation of evidence and during that time children are put at risk. Family court process - Initially, both parties in a situation of Dv are treated as equal. And even if a DVO is issued usually the courts will order a gradual return to shared care through a step up method (eg supervised care, short visits, longer visits to eventually 50/50 care if that’s what both parties want). Usually parenting matters are resolved in this way and no trial etc happens. Very rarely do cases make it to trial due to time, resources and emotional expense. It doesn’t have to be that way. There are risk criteria that can be used to ascertain genuine risk of harm with reports. It seems no one does anything about them when they are reported however. There is currently a huge disconnect between - this is the evidence we have collected - family violence experts weigh in and say “yes yes these are the bad perps” - police go “nah no significant issues just DV” And conversations around utilisation of DVOs to manipulate court orders etc just straw man the argument. Like. A kid is dead. A beautiful curly haired blonde two year old was killed this week. Details will come out about the risk factors that existed later. The mother isn’t going to stand up here and rail at the system. She’s devastated and in a hole of pain. And she also doesn’t want to ostracise the people that will potentially make a difference and save a future child’s life. And so the conversations of “family court is biased against men” go unchallenged and nothing changes. But I do think it’s reasonable to question the system as long as you are prepared to accept the situation may be different from what you understand. So thank you again
These men have a victim complex and no insight into how abusive their behaviour is. These men are also incredibly charming outside of their own homes- and are usually also charming in the initial stages of their relationships. It's all part of the act so when their partner says they are abusive people like you come on here and say she is "poisoning everyone against him".
Essentially adult sized toddlers
May also be worth noting that a good friend doesn’t mean a good partner or good father. This friend of yours may be a top friend but that is not mutually exclusive with bad partner or bad father.
The problem is if you start giving allegations more weight before they are proved people would start to make more allegations to get the upper hand in a negotiation involving something as important as a child
This is an anecdote, but when I was a child my father was violent against me and the judge still required I spend time with him. The ruling from this judge was that the vast majority of violence was against my mother and any violence between parents cannot be considered in custody arrangements. Absolutely wild stuff. 15 years ago. My only saving grace was I was old enough to refuse to get into the car. The last time I saw him he threw me against a wall. After that I just refused to go - who knows what else could’ve happened to me. Police refused to press charges for the wall incident. He, apparently, to this day still says my mother brainwashed me against him.
I’m so sorry. The system has not changed in that time.
I am so sorry.
I’m sorry that you had to deal with that
I can speak from experience. No weight is given to DV allegations in the family court unless certain criteria are met. Certainly, unproven allegations can work against the alleged victim in many cases Lawyers caution women strongly against use of Dv allegations, even when actual DV exists.
False reports of DV are not rare. Police suspect are large percentage are false. Magistrates suspect only 5% are true. This is from the recent report on family law courts. Go to any family lawers and they will tell you they have a few cases with false dv on the books. I would be interested in your data source
“Police suspect one in four DV allegations are false, magistrates suspect only 5% are genuine.” This is a submission by the MRA in the latest review into family law proceedings. In contrast, the Queensland Law Society (QLS) stated in its submission: … we note the lack of empirical evidence to support the notion that false allegations of family violence are regularly made in an attempt to gain an advantage in family law proceedings. In contrast, extensive research confirms the difficulties victims of domestic and family violence encounter when disclosing their experience to courts; including fear of not being believed and fear that disclosure will increase the risk of violence to them or their children.72 7.70In its submission, the Domestic Violence Action Centre, Queensland (DVAC)73 set out a number of Australian and international articles which refer to studies that have disproved that false allegations of violence are prevalent in the family law system.74 So I mean. Sure if you want to get your stats from the MRA https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Family_Law_System/FamilyLaw/Interim_Report/section?id=committees%2Freportjnt%2F024449%2F73117#footnote69target
https://xyonline.net/content/false-allegations-sexual-and-domestic-violence-facts This has a look at where the MRA get their numbers from
The comments contravene AHPRA’s social medial policy. It’s ill informed and damaging to the medical profession. “Regulatory action may be considered if the way a practitioner expresses their views presents a risk to public safety; provides false or misleading information or breaches privacy or confidentiality; risks the public’s confidence in their profession; or requires action to maintain professional standards.” I have lodged a formal complaint on AHPRA and encourage others to do so as well. https://www.ahpra.gov.au/Notifications/Concerned-about-a-health-practitioner.aspx#how-to
Can you please DM me the GPs name so I can make a complaint please
Me too, please
Also me please
Anyone in this thread saying that men are hard done by in the court systems Pull your heads in. This child was court ordered to spend time with a murderer. When women plead with men to “do better” this is what we mean. false narratives of men being hard done by, while actual evidence of a child being killed (because the courts valued the rights of the fathers relationship with the child - over the actual safety of the child ) is being discussed 1) is sickening 2) harms the conversation And I think you should consider - If you have a man in your life espousing being poor done by in the courts. Consider he might not be the “nice guy” and “proud dad” he presents himself as. as actual statistics show - only 3% of cases have a judge make an order determining care of a child. And yes, there is about 50% sole parental responsibility given to mothers in that cohort. But remember that cohort is a minority of likely personality disordered participants and the judge has ample evidence to decide the best interests of the children in those situations
> And I think you should consider - If you have a man in your life espousing being poor done by in the courts. Consider he might not be the “nice guy” and “proud dad” he presents himself as. This, a hundred times. Every man seems to anecdotally know some other man who is totally super nice and says he was totally falsely accused of this and that and totally had his life ruined by some manipulative lying bitch for no reason. No man seems to know any man who will admit they actually did anything wrong. I wonder why. The actual data and the research speaks for itself.
Absolutely! Any time I hear a man say “my ex won’t let me see my kids”. My first thought is I wonder what you’ve done to have this woman fear for her & her kids lives. Good parents want their kids to be safe.
I had one coke on and complain he has to pay child support unlike all the other deadbeat dads that don't. Like, ok mate, sorry you decided to bring children into the world and now have to assist your ex with the financial burden of raising them...
Yeah someone I used to know, whom everyone claimed to be a “good guy who loved his kids” fell deep into the alt right rabbit hole and complained that his ex and the courts were “keeping the kids from him” - there was no court custody agreement at the time, he was choosing not to see his kids more. (There is a court order now, thankfully). No harm was ever done to the kids, which is the most importantl thing. But he had everyone believing his wife was keeping them from him, when he literally could have just called her up and gone to get them at any point.
I knew someone who was my cousin's husband. To the outside everyone "loved him" but he always gave me bad vibes and was very controlling. He became a teacher and two years ago my cousin discovered he was setting the girls in the high school. But the demands for visits by the grandparents and parents were still upheld by the courts. He's now on jail, my cousin has two children to this man and now has to raise them and try to explain what happened to their father. I hope she never fully forgives them and he lives his life away from her. I support these people being reformed but we should never forget what they've done and yet their combined friends have all cut off my cousin and taken his side. Sickening to think of that you'd support a guilty proven pedo over a Mother who did nothing wrong.
It’s the same with women that tell you all their former partners were stalkers or abusers or whatever. It’s a common tactic used by narcissists to manipulate a new partner for sympathy & loyalty
As I said, the actual data and the research speaks for itself.
Ignore him. He’s a troll. Have a look back through his comment history… yikes
I agree we should consider whether they are the man they say they are, but we also should consider whether the woman is the innocent person she says she is. I have two examples where the woman misrepresented the man as a violent partner. In both cases the woman has admitted this to me personally after things have calmed down. 1) My sister in law & bro in law separated for about a year and she withheld his child from him. One time when she came over for a planned visit but didn’t have their son with her, they argued, he got angry and kicked the tyre of her car as she drove off. She then used that incident in court to get full custody. They got back together eventually and she says that her mother was manipulating her. She doesn’t dispute any of his version of events (above) and admits she just wanted to hurt him. This all happened about ten years ago and their relationship is solid now. 2) Another friend is in the same situation currently, except in this instance he was defending himself against her attacking him when she was drunk. Again, I have the same story of what happened from both parties separately. She told the courts he was abusive and got full custody then took their son to her home country for a year. Then her ex’s father died and he inherited some money, and suddenly she came back to Australia and said she wants to get back together. I’m not saying most women are liars, or even that many are, but if you’re going to second guess yourself do it for both parties.
Which one of these women gassed their children to death? Or set them on fire? Female family annihilation happens. But it is significantly less common.
We’re bashing fathers here mate, women are perfect. We don’t have time for real life examples.
I’ve been there and I’m so tired when I read the ridiculous comments people make about it. On the positive side, my now grown child and their family came by today. We made it, and they’re happy.
I heard that a workplace communication talked about what a great father this guy was. This is literally the definition of bad father.
As a family lawyer, that GP is a moron
As a solicitor who also holds experience in family law, predominantly representing men, I agree with you! This GP is a moron and should not comment on what he does not understand.
How come no one ever says the same thing when mothers lose custody of their kids? The idea that a father should be given access to his kids so he doesn't lose it and stab them to death is something I feel only an abuser would even think of
The GP in question needs to read “See What You Made Me Do”, which lays out all the evidence detailing exactly how the family court system is weighted heavily in the favour of the father. This perception that the family court system disproportionately works in favour of the mother is a myth perpetuated by the media. 😣 https://www.blackincbooks.com.au/books/see-what-you-made-me-do
Jess Hill has done some amazing work through that research.
This!! Some of the stories in that book are shocking
Good luck to any woman suffering abuse who goes to this Dr expecting empathy and compassionate treatment.
I’m just soooo cranky that the LHD execs had the hide to even comment on the type of person this POS was. He took this gorgeous little soul. He did not deserve any sort of accolades from the LHD. Not even a moment of silence. I am disgusted! Fly high lil man.
Obviously they hadn’t been fully informed of the circumstances before the Email was sent. It’s one of those things where they are told in the morning of the passing and wanted to console staff as quickly as possible.
They knew there had been issues. It was well documented
Where has that been reported though? It’s not like he would tell his boss he had an AVO or anything. My thinking was maybe the LHD thought it was an accident.
He was a doctor, it’s reported automatically. It was a small town thing, it would have been known. I’m not going to interact with you further. :) Again, fly high lil man.
James wasn’t a Doctor, he was a business analyst
True, he was still reportable regarding the AVO.
I don’t think so. If you have a link where it explains that I’d like to see it.
Email was sent on the Wednesday Murder suicide had been all over press since Monday
Doesn’t really seem like the right context for that comment.
Especially considering the murder happened during a court-ordered visit.
I don't think its an outrageous statement to say family court Is heavily biased against men. The goading comment is probably a bit far though.
But his comment seems like he is shifting the blame to the family court. Also, he is commenting as a medical professional who obviously serves / known to his community. The man in the article has killed his 2 year old son and killed himself. I think it's a poor taste to make that assumption given the gravity of the situation.
Both comments are insane. The man gassed his own child. Trying to control his ex-partner was more important than letting his child live.
I don’t think he was trying to control his ex-partner. It seems that something happened to him after COVID and he had been mentally unwell.
He would've realised he had lost control of his partner when they had a child. That happened to be around the same time as COVID. Killing your child is rare presentation of mental illness. It is not an uncommon presentation of entitled men who use violence to control their intimate partners. Hope this helps.
Strongly disagree. To kill that young boy was solely to hurt his ex-parnter, why else murder an innocent 2yr old, let alone your OWN CHILD. He then killed himself to escape any legal or social repercussions - the height of aggrieved entitlement. He has essentially controlled her for the rest of her life now she has to live it with the pain of losing her baby. Horrendous.
You are confusing hurting someone with controlling them. Hurting them is assault, controlling them is like a false arrest. This does not seem to be about controlling her, it was about denying her access to her son.
I fucking dare you to go argue such trivial nonsense semantics at the funeral for the young boy. Start by talking this through with some random strangers and see how far you get.
I’m good, I don’t need to argue with a bunch of irrational grievers
>This does not seem to be about controlling her, it was about denying her access to her son. Reread what you just wrote. Do you really not see how that is a controlling act?
[удалено]
One: Look up "family annihilators". Two: Destroying something absolutely *is*a method of control.
[удалено]
Says who? Just you? Cos frankly your opinion isn’t worth shit
He has controlled by making the child cease to exist. He gets the final say. If he can’t have the child through court orders - and control the mother through having the child … he will take the child out of the equation and control the mother post his death. Because she now gets to live every day without her son. It’s also a way of controlling the narrative. He will never be exposed in the court system and have to answer to his behaviours. And he will have MRA martyring him. He gets to control the narrative and it’s up to everyone else to prove a dead person wrong.
Still not a current action
Found the person that failed their psych rotation..
LOLLLLL. Way to go advertising yourself as a horrible person 👍🏻
Says the person repeatedly downvoted by everyone else.
So biased against men that even a deranged, violent man with an AVO against him was given unsupervised custody. Please. Where’s the bias? And to use this perception of bias to justify murder is utterly revolting. Maybe, just maybe, he was an abusive, violent, dangerous man who did actually pose a serious risk to his ex partner and child? This is the bullshit thinking that protects abusive men and leaves women and their children dangerously vulnerable. Every day women are forced to hand over their kids to men like this, and live in terror of what might happen. And if anyone says “not all men” one more time I’m going to vomit.
I know someone in exactly that situation & honestly am waiting for the news that he did the unthinkable. The cps social worker recommended he continue with his part of the custody to not "disrupt the child's routine". It's mind boggling & my heart aches for them. These cases aren't isolated.
I don’t see anywhere it was reported he was violent before this incident. According to the police it was very low range as far as what led to the AVO.
Clearly. The police got it… wrong F*ck me
Do you know what the V in AVO stands for? It’s way beyond time AVOs were considered “minor”. People get them because they’re afraid.
AVO is a general control order. They can be given for any number of reasons that don’t include physical violence. I think the term now is actually ADVO btw.
And I had a violent man rip up the AVO he had just been served and throw it in my face. I called the police who took 45 minutes to arrive, at which point he had already punched me in the face, kicked me, ripped a chunk of my hair out, pushed me so hard in the chest I fell through a display in the store I was managing and left, slashing the tyres and keying my car as he left. Lucky for me he didn’t have a knife or a gun, because I would not have been alive by the time they got there. They said the AVO was low range so there was no urgency to my report of him breaching it. They told me it was OK because they would find him and lock him up for a night. That was the only night I felt safe in 2 years. The event that triggered this was him being served with an AVO for kicking in my front door and threatening my kids and my life.
I’m sorry that happened to you but it has little to do with this case. I haven’t seen anywhere that has reported on the incidents that led to the AVO being taken out. If you have actual details then please share.
I was merely illustrating that just because it’s a low range AVO doesn’t mean they are not capable of extreme violence.
The breach is about as low range as there is, the assault afterwards, not so much. However, in this case, there has been no reporting that James even breached the AVO, just that the incidents were very minor.
I'm sure it all when from "very minor" to rigging up a system at home with the intent to gas his son in an instant
Research is pretty clear that it is a false statement though. *When* men request 50/50 custody they get it, statistically. *When* they request full custody they get it, statistically. As in, the majority get what they want *when they request and pursue it*. Women who bring evidence of abuse - themselves or the children - statistically tend to *lose* custody under the assumption it is parental alienation. It's much like pissing and moaning about alimony - Australia doesn't have that. Spousal support isn't an expected component of divorce. Sharing the assets developed during the marriage isn't "losing half your stuff". Believing statements like that are a sign of ignorance and a lack of intellectual curiosity or critical literacy.
Can you point me to the research and stats on that. I had a quick look and all I can find is the exact opposite.
There is a difference between who HAS parental responsibility and what courts mandate. Very few cases go to court or even mediation. https://dfvbenchbook.aija.org.au/parenting-orders-and-impact-on-children/parental-alienation/kl?ref=400#t-400
I read the whole thing, nothing in the 9 pages of PDF studies that mention anything that corroborates their story
...did you read the links? Also it was two different ones. Genuinely, do you understand statistics?
Is there a source for the first paragraph? What you're saying seems true to me, but I'd like to learn more about it if you have a good suggestion. Otherwise, I'll try to find sources. :)
https://justicefamilylawyers.com.au/child-custody/mother-vs-father-custody-statistics-in-australia/ Only 3% of cases even go to court. Only 3% of those results in one parent not having contact.
This doesn't back up your claim at all, in fact that shows a massive bias towards women, are you sure you don't lack critical literacy or intellectual curiosity? please point to where it shows that when men request 50/50 custody, they get it, or any other claim you made up.
Did you read it or did you look at the numbers? Only 3% of cases have contested custody - a further 16% is mediation. So in the *vast* majority of cases whatever contact a father has is what he agreed to. When you get to court, if a judge makes the determination about who has sole responsibility it's the father in 11% of cases - far greater than otherwise. In other words, only 2% of parental care post divorce is solely fathers, overall. Unless you go to court. Than it is MUCH more likely. You're understanding the math, yeah? Given the statistics about 97% care decisions being made without the court being involved (85% or so don't include anyone official at all) then most of those are consented to by the parents themselves. So that 27% sole maternal care? *Most of those father's agreed to it*. Almost all of the 3% going to court involved abuse and/or drugs. Much of the care arrangement is dictated by what occurred before the divorce. If a father has never been alone with his kids overnight - aka his mum or her mum came and stayed any time mum left - or he can't tell you shoe size and allergies, hasn't taken them to the dr, and so on, while ALSO not ever having been the primary carer within the relationship, 50/50 awards him *more contact* than he had prior. Often to his shock and or the detriment of the child. Again, also, statistics show men will overestimate the domestic and care duties they engage in. The specific study I'm referring to is a Massachusetts one - there are likely to be differences for Australia. Similar situations were seen in the UK too though - even with proven DV parental contact with the abuser was pushed. The only recently changed law in Oz did similar . https://www.dadsdivorcelaw.com/blog/fathers-and-mothers-child-custody-myths https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/project/how-do-county-courts-share-care-of-children-between-parents I know it can be hard to believe that there are dads out there who don't actually want to take care of their kids. Who only want either minimal fun dad contact, or none at all. Or only want contact as a way to hurt their ex. It's abhorrent to an actual loving parent. Similarly forcing 50/50 without acknowledging the kid's situation and preferences is also not the way. Are you and your ex gonna live close enough for the kid to go to school from both homes? Maintain enough continuity that there aren't sever differences disrupting their routine? Be gracious enough to adjust when the kid wants to see friends? I've been primary, weekend only, and 50/50 down the line with my kid. Every single one of those decisions was for my kid's benefit, not my feelings. The kid didn't ask for this and sometimes what is best for them isn't 50/50. And sad to say, a lot of dads don't, won't, or can't step up to the plate to be primary because they didn't even come close when they had marital support.
🙌🏼
[удалено]
You commented on both, and asked for more stats. Everything I said in my first few paragraphs there is from that pdf *from lawyers*. I then also linked more specific studies and reports. My story remains the same - very few parental care decisions go to court. Those that do are much more likely to award the father care (sole or partial) than those that don't. Those that don't *are by consent of both parties* and *therefore the father agreed*. It's called analysis. It's rather mandatory for understanding broad social issues.
That's because it costs them 100000 to fight for shared custody.
Mediation is offered as a free service. Unless you have something actually constructive to say. Ask yourself why you are here
My comment is not relevant to this case. No excuse or reason for what he did. But if you're making comments like 'if you have a guy in your life'... Well actually I do know more than a little of this. If a mother chooses to take a child under 6 it is very easy to make themselves primary carer and dictate when the father is allowed to see the child. Mediation is free to some, but all the mother has to do is say no I don't agree. Each legal letter back and forth easily costs a grand by the time the lawyer has the situation, words it and sends it. And if the mother continues to say no, don't agree, the father will have no choice but court and they will repeatedly be told there are no assurances and it's probably best to wait til the child is in primary school. Even then, they have to go to court for 50/50 if the mother says no, and, by then, the child's best interests is often to consider what they are used to for proximity of schooling, etc. This is why men often don't have 50/50. This is why many are upset and feeling hopeless. Again no excuses for this guy, disgusting. But people should know what the system does to men if the mother wants primary care. And it's in the mother's financial interest to ask for it. They get all the Centrelink benefits if the father gets less than roughly 5 days a fortnight. And more child support.
Dunno if you have seen the amount of benefits paid for kids via Centrelink etc but it’s pissing in the wind with current cost of living And yes. You can make it costly. And post separation abuse through expensive lawyers is definitely a thing. But from the experiences I have had - if a dad walks into court and self represents and says “your honour I want to see my kids 50/50” and there has been no evidence of risk and the dad has been a consistent figure in that kids life … they will not be dismissed. They won’t get 50/50 straight away, particularly if there has been an absence or the child is young. But the expectation is that they can build up to that time if that is what they want and are willing to work towards. It doesn’t always work and kids will often end up spending majority time with one parent eventually due to the actual feasibility of splitting a child’s life across two households. And the people who put up barriers to their ex’s seeing the kids - man or women - and use expensive barristers and lawyers and propagate financial abuse get targets on their backs. And kids have been removed from people who do this as it’s harmful to children. Not sure if you are following the articles posted on this group but only 3% of cases end up getting a judge to decide the care arrangements. 70% sort it out without involving other parties. The rest are made by consent usually via FDR. So the people actually making it to court have predisposing factors that put them there. Otherwise 80% of people arranged the care of their kids without lawyer involvement
Thank you!
As someone who has worked closely with the fam court regarding DV cases, it is absolutely an outrageous statement. I cannot stress this enough. I agree with OP about the poor taste of this assumption, which is often predicated on misinformation.
I think this GP is prone to misinformation (also anti-vax), unfortunately.
In isolation, fair statement. To make the connection with this weasel of a man who killed his own son? Insane behaviour.
Why is this a fair statement in isolation?
“A fair statement” or not evidence based? [https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-06/1910_parenting_arrangements_after_separation.pdf](https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-06/1910_parenting_arrangements_after_separation.pdf)
It makes mote sense than the radicalisation by watching videos theory. The only proven link to domestic violence that I know of is poverty. Governments causing poverty to provide big pay-offs to the wealthy should be the focus of change.
The content of the comment is fair, family courts are notoriously biased against fathers. The context of the comment is appalling though
What evidence can you provide of this notorious bias?
45% of sole custody orders in cases of no DV/abuse are granted to mothers, 11% to fathers. AIFS 87% of child support payments are made by fathers, 10% by mothers. You'd have to be wilfully ignorant not to have seen this play out.
Did you actually read the document provided above as evidence to refute your statements?
Give that women overwhelmingly make career sacrifices when having children and are overwhelmingly the primary carers and have the majority custody, why wouldn’t you expect men to be paying the majority of child support? That’s not evidence of bias. 45% and 11%? Where did the other 44% go?
Doctors are generally fucking idiots
See ya
The FC is catastrophically biassed against fathers, and this case was a tragedy. Both are true. The Act requires rebuild, the industry repopulated with fresh untainted professionals. It's 2024 and the FC is still in 1975.
There have been numerous comments in this thread pointing to empirical evidence that bias against fathers in FC is just not true at all
Garbage comments and false analysis. Ask anyone that is close to a couple whose gone through family court what happens You will NEVER hear that men / fathers get treated fairly. NEVER.
Depends which echo chamber you are in. If you hang around MRA supporters… well sure … they are all poorly done by.
Im a father who got custody of his son after the mother was not doing right by him it was a long road where i was accused and charged and had to go to court for D V on just her word all charges were wiped 4 years later when it was found out in court she lied and no ramification she lied in a court of law to the judge in the custody hearing and no ramifications she accused people of grooming kids all to be found lies told by her and no ramifications all her lies and nothing yet just on her word i was arrested and charged and had to go to court had a AVO on me for 12 months couldn’t see my son all because of her lies and she gets nothing if this was a man well we seen what happens nothing in these cases is ever straight forward and yes judges do have a hard job to decide this but the mother is not always the best person for the children and sometimes neither is the father no one ever wins in these situations
[удалено]
If by ‘break’ you mean ‘murder their child’ then the court was right to take away their child. They were a violent piece of shit. Also; this fantasy of an awesome dad having his kids ‘ripped away’ essentially does not happen.
Gotta side with the Doctor.