Banned dad's agonizing loss

Laurie Nowell, supposedly a Family Court Reporter of the Herald Sun has written once again in favor of the fathers rights groups. Not only the agenda they promote, but includes stories from their perspectives denying that they were abusive or that they stalked their ex partners. Considering how difficult it is to prove when a parent is unsafe towards the child with the current laws in place, it is of great concern as to why this perception of events is being promoted. Despite the myths floating around the community that mothers make false allegations of child abuse and domestic violence to win child custody, research over the years has proven that the majority of cases where child abuse and violence is raised are in fact true. Furthermore, the majority that make false allegations are fathers. It is no surprise to learn this after many fathers rights advocates have often said over the years that "lying in the family court is easy". For them perhaps as the entire court revolves around their needs.

How so, if there are more single mothers? The answer is in what the father wants being the first priority above all else. Most families separate outside of court and dad chooses to be a weekend dad and in a lot of cases - he becomes a deadbeat. During the shared parenting campaigns, mothers were mislead to believe that the courts were going to ensure that fathers had to participate in raising the children in an ideal child - focused setting. No work in this area was done apart from adding further pressures and constraints on the mothers ability to parent her children. With the current laws, the mother is entirely responsible for maintaining the relationship between the father and the child.

Very few cases allowed mothers to relocate(even to another suburb), protected her from physical abuse and in some cases restricted her from taking the child to a doctor. Since the eighties, laws in the Family courts have diminished the status of mothers to the point that her rights reflect nothing but a glorified babysitter. Even less of a role in the decision making process are the rights of children. Most cases where the child has raised child abuse are perverted to portray that the child is brainwashed into making false allegations. In countries where these laws have been established for a longer period, murder suicide rates are higher and children are the property of men often to puppeteer the mother into submitting into his demands. There is even a motion in the states where the father can demand that the child reside with him or go to foster care. Cases like these almost always begin with shared parenting, well known amongst fathers rights advocates as a gateway for full custody.

Anyone who tries to interact with them and raise concerns about child abuse or intimate partner terrorism is often abused or labeled

. We have all heard and seen them vocalize their complaints about not receiving adequate rights, matched with their justifications. What the general public have not really observed enough is the fact that even when they had been given what they wanted on a platter - it was not enough and have not ceased demanding for more. A good example of this is what they said about the reporter Laurie Nowell after he wrote in their favor:

"F--k me sideways. What a joke.
We'll have to start our own media." Nick Martin(Norsaint publishing)

The same rhetoric is in the media again regardless of the truths and virtues it violates. The Christian lobby is urging

Tasmanian Christians to write in and stop a bill that stops sperm donors of same sex couples from interfering and the fathers rights are busy making submissions against same sex marriages in the Marriage Act. The cause appears at first glance "black and white" as if the evil government is denying children fathers, but on the campaign webpage

it is pretty clear that they are yet again trying to make laws that reflect their values and incite hate towards same sex couples. Again, its all about "keeping mothers on that leash" as if they were cattle. By allowing religious laws, we open up the flood gates to an emergence of more extremists

who may want to introduce similar laws to that of the Black Shirts

or encourage perhaps the "religious freedom" to execute

women for "honor". What is a further disgrace is that the Christian lobby has been accepted as a balenced news source for google news engine along with Mens Daily News and other extremists.
Our news sources need to keep these agendas out and report without bias on the experiences that have barely been touched upon.

The list of articles in fathers rights favour: