"You've taken my kids, I've taken your bridge."

[dreamer_easy]

Broken bonds: catalysts for family disputes

IMHO there's a lot of positive stuff in the above Newcastle Herald article on fathers, separation, and custody. The article emphasises the damage done by the belief that men should swallow their emotions and never ask for help, and the need for men going through divorce to seek support. One researcher remarks that "asking for help is a sign of masculine strength", and I think that's absolutely right - it takes guts to resist the macho stereotype, and to refuse to let stress and isolation hurt you and your loved ones.

However, there's some really questionable stuff too:

"Barrister Carl Boyd said some dads felt they faced a losing battle for custody of their children even before they stepped into a court room. A mother may make false allegations of child abuse or take out an apprehended violence order."

This paints a picture of lying women easily manipulating a biased system. This 2007 AIFS report on Family Court outcomes paints a different picture:

"Allegations of spousal violence or parental child abuse accompanied by evidence of strong probative weight appeared to influence court orders. Without such evidence, allegations did not seem to be formally linked to outcomes."

So without convincing evidence to back them up, allegations of spousal or child abuse make no difference. Boyd notes that in the 10% of cases that did go to court, the resulting orders "generally divided custody time equally between mothers and fathers". So I hope he isn't needlessly discouraging his male clients, making them feel as though they're the helpless victims of vindictive women and gullible judges.

Which brings me to Mick Fox ("the chicks get in first and start throwing stones, the blokes don't stand a chance"), whose protest stopped traffic on the Harbour Bridge earlier this month. Plenty of folks rushed to laud him as a champion, and he insists he's selflessly protesting on behalf of children - but we simply don't know the circumstances of his separation. The note he allegedly left for police were threatening: "Be aware. I'm an Australian veteran and highly trained former elite soldier. Do whatever is asked and this will start and end peacefully." (If he'd pulled the same stunt in the US, I don't think he'd have survived.) His friend and neighbour remarked, "I hate seeing him portrayed as this idiot because he loves those kids and they've had them in protective custody and they didn't even tell him where they were and I've seen him going berserk." What does she mean by "protective custody"? Why did the judge at Fox's bail hearing order him not to contact his wife and children, and some family members? Obviously, this is hardly evidence that Fox was an abusive husband or father - but it is unsettling, and makes me unwilling to take his protest at face value.

(Meanwhile, asylum seeker children younger than ten are engaging in self harm.)

ETA: Further reading: The myth of false accusations of child abuse.

Comments

[murasaki-1966.livejournal.com]

Whatever the circumstances, somehow, holding the Harbour Bridge to ransom, does not look like a good way toshow the Family Court you're a sane and responsible person.

An article in the SMH maintained that he was involved with a bikie group, and had narrowly missed being killing in a gang war shootout. If this is true, I not surprised his ex-wife is leary of letting him near the kids. sill he has a right to see them.