NSW Australian Law - Opinions on IVO Changes to the Legislation?

[sammy01]

Thatbloke, I have been very nice...Even apologised to you. Agreed with you.... Oops, ellipsis. Sorry...

You had a go at someone because of the number of posts. So let's get back to attacking folk based on number of posts.

Me 2000. And 300 likes. You 300 posts and 40 likes. Not a popularity contest but you raised it in another thread.

Mate. Let me tell you something. You have done more to attack others that help punters in need of help on this site. To the good folk here who agree with my assertion please spend a few minutes going through recent posts. There is a report button. Click it...

I think good folk joined recently and posted in the last week have decided not to use this wonderful resource because their threads have been railroaded. I am guilty of it. Bad me... I will make a point when I'm not on my mobile (holidays with kids) to report myself. Dare you to do the same. More importantly, I invite the regulars... The ones you refer to as Bert and Ernie to do the same.

 

[Rod]

As for blaming this on men... jeebus, what is wrong with you?

Because it is true.

Both genders in my view are roughly equally to blame for violence in family relationships. The trouble is men are physically stronger, able to defend themselves in most cases, and do the most physical harm.

Your concern is about false allegations of violence and I accept this is a genuine issue that the courts, at least state courts, do not handle very well. VicPol also have standing instructions to deal strongly with domestic violence situations and many more IVOs are being taken out by them because a woman wanting minor help to defuse a situation, has the matter taken out of her hands by the police.

We need to stamp out violence and the system is reacting, some may say over-reacting, to stamp out violence. The published statistic everyone seems to talk about is one woman killed every week. There's the other side to consider as well - 75 men killed by their partners between 2012-2014 according to an ABS survey conducted in 2016. That's one every 10 days.

So people are dying and the system is attempting to slow the rate of deaths. In the meantime people will abuse and manipulate the system for their own selfish ends to deny the other parent access to children. Which is the greater good - stopping people dying? or helping the innocent father retain access to his children?

Can't we do both you say? I think we can, and I'd like the court system to better recognise the role fathers play in their children's lives. I remember being horrified when I first heard that fathers have no rights, only obligations.

I'd like to see people punished with contempt of court on a regular basis when they lie in affidavits and are proven to have lied in an issue that has the potential to affect time with a child, and in significant property matters. When people are hit with penalties for abusing the system them I suspect we'll see a reduced number of false allegations being made, and some vindication for the wronged party - whether man or woman.

 

[miguel]

Rod, I think we need to include men's suicides in the death rate. In my view it's state sponsored murder.

 

[MartyK]

When viewing DV statics - including DV homicides - it’s important to remember data can include - partners of opposite sex - partners of same sex - all cultural backgrounds - minority groups etc. DV homicide statistics - can also include murders committed by other family member

For others - just some general info - take or leave -
Family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia 2018 - AIHW

I think we need to include mens suicides in the death rate.

I agree male suicide rates are extremely alarming and much more needs to be done - this is a far broader issue than Family Law - IMO - does not discriminate between separated fathers, or boys and men generally

 

[Bill Murray]

This discussion almost reads like a MGTOW discussion board...

 

[Bill Murray]

There is very, very minimal evidence that suicide rates are linked to child custody issues.

If it was the ratio of male:female suicide should spike in the 25-50 age brackets. It doesn't. The ratio remains static.

The male:female ratio almost, but not quite, equalises when you remove regional and remote areas. If child custody issues were having such a huge impact on suicide rates it would have an equal impact in metro areas, regional and remote areas.

 

[Rod]

If child custody issues were having such a huge impact on suicide rates it would have an equal impact in metro areas, regional and remote areas.

This is a conclusion that cannot be reached from the limited stats you provided.

 

[Bill Murray]

This is a conclusion that cannot be reached from the limited stats you provided.

Interesting that you have a problem accepting my view that custody is not tightly related to suicide yet have no problem accepting miguels view that suicide is basically state sponsored murder and the implication that it is due to the way family courts handle custody.

FWIW I entirely agree with the proposed changes. Nothing about them is poor. Most of the people I meet who have massive whinges about family court and custody (male or female) deserve to have reduced custody. For some reason they spend 99% of the time whinging about child support - I would have thought a greater concern would be the lack of time you get to spend with your kid but whatever.

 

[miguel]

This discussion almost reads like a MGTOW discussion board...

With insights like that we should all sit up and take notice.

For the rest, sources please.

 

[Rod]

.. you have a problem accepting my view that custody is not tightly related to suicide yet have no problem accepting miguels view that suicide is basically state sponsored murder

I did not comment or express a view about Miguel's post. Though I will admit I personally knew someone who suicided over suspected family issues and am biased about the impact separation from children has on men (and women).

Nothing about them is poor.

An inability to question your accuser in court presents fundamental issues about a person's right to natural justice. Not being able to question the person and see them while questioning can lead to unjust outcomes. Having an impartial court appointed person goes against the right to advocate your own case. Imposing the restriction on cross-examinations for mere allegations of violence, rather than convictions, may lead to increases in false allegations being made by one party just to obtain an advantage in a custody battle. Some women already abuse the IVO system for gains in a family court parenting matter, and the new rules will give them another tool to exploit.

The issue is whether the proposed changes presents problems for self-represented litigants who do not qualify for legal aid. thatbloke makes a valid point saying some men can't afford lawyers and will not qualify for legal aid. I suspect this is the reason the legislation is considering the use of a court appointed person to ask questions on behalf of the SRL.

One of the submissions made to the A-G last year has a reasonable suggestion on how it could work with a red/gold card method.

So while I don't think the changes are disastrous for SRLs, some fine tuning can be made.