Australian Politics Forum - Rights of children must trump violent parents

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: Rights of children must trump violent parents
Reply #45 - May 1^st, 2017 at 12:56pm

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 12:50pm:

Are you arguing that if your friend did not immediately see he error of his ways and change he could have been a healthy parent?

I've never seen any reason to suspect his abilities as a parent and you would be hard pressed arguing otherwise.

I'm not disagreeing that someone who beats their wife up daily should have their rights removed, as far as I'm concerned they have no rights and should rot in jail. I just think it's a little simplistic to say all 'abusive parents' without first defining what exactly constitutes an abusive parent.

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 36843
Gender: female

Re: Rights of children must trump violent parents
Reply #46 - May 1^st, 2017 at 1:04pm

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 12:56pm:

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 12:50pm:

Are you arguing that if your friend did not immediately see he error of his ways and change he could have been a healthy parent?

I've never seen any reason to suspect his abilities as a parent and you would be hard pressed arguing otherwise.

I'm not disagreeing that someone who beats their wife up daily should have their rights removed, as far as I'm concerned they have no rights and should rot in jail. I just think it's a little simplistic to say all 'abusive parents' without first defining what exactly constitutes an abusive parent.

That's for courts to decide.

Read Alinta's link.

Read the ways in which the system failed Luke and Rosie Batty ... and children every single day.

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

Enquiring mind

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 104946

Re: Rights of children must trump violent parents
Reply #47 - May 1^st, 2017 at 4:00pm

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 11:26am:

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 11:23am:

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 11:13am:

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 11:05am:

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 10:58am:

Is your wife controlling of you?

of course, she's a WIFE. that's what you women do Cheesy

how come we've moved on from kids to spouses?

Do you find your wife's "control" of you impinges on your autonomy or human decency? Or are you ust complaining about being asked to empy the dishwasher?

Come on John, you know in what way abusive spouses control their parners,

And we're talking about spouses because it is the premise of he article.

"A myth persists that men who abuse, assault, blackmail, stalk or terrorise their ex-partners can still be "good dads"."

I am extfinalending that to include women who do the above also.

I just think your definition is to broad. You were more specific when you added the stipulation that it must 'impinge on your autonomy or human decency' but that still doesn't go far enough. There is a lot of grey area in what can be considered 'controlling', 'abusive' or even 'threatening'.

Expand on what way abusive can be a grey area?

I'll give you an example, Mother. I'm working with a guy who didn't pass his Working With Children's check because the police arrested and put a standard AVO on him. He has no other convictions, charges or police history. This charge and the AVO was later dropped.

Now from what I understand, you can get a clear WWC if you don't have any final AVOs, or AVOs granted by a magistrate. An interrim police AVO doesn't rule you out.

In this case, the guy I'm referring to hasn't been rejected, he just needs to jump through a lot of hoops, get references, etc.

To me, this is excessive. Now we have DV laws in NSW and a zero-tolerance approach to DV by most police area commands, standard AVOs (not to threaten, intimidate or harass) are often the first response in police domestic call-outs. Not only are there gray areas in these sorts of cases, I've seen AVOs slapped on fathers, mothers, kids, the lot, and I've seen them for minor smacks, threats and even no smacks or threats at all.

Prohibiting someone from employment is a very serious decision and should not be taken lightly. People need to be a real threat to kids, and not just fulfil a criterion on a checklist; or in this case, not.

Back to top

IP Logged

Enquiring mind

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 104946

Re: Rights of children must trump violent parents
Reply #48 - May 1^st, 2017 at 4:07pm

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 1:04pm:

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 12:56pm:

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 12:50pm:

Are you arguing that if your friend did not immediately see he error of his ways and change he could have been a healthy parent?

I've never seen any reason to suspect his abilities as a parent and you would be hard pressed arguing otherwise.

I'm not disagreeing that someone who beats their wife up daily should have their rights removed, as far as I'm concerned they have no rights and should rot in jail. I just think it's a little simplistic to say all 'abusive parents' without first defining what exactly constitutes an abusive parent.

That's for courts to decide.

Read Alinta's link.

Read the ways in which the system failed Luke and Rosie Batty ... and children every single day.

I'd say there is no way a system could have protected Luke Batty at all, short of indefinitely detaining his father.

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 36843
Gender: female

Re: Rights of children must trump violent parents
Reply #49 - May 1^st, 2017 at 4:07pm

Enquiring mind wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 4:00pm:

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 11:26am:

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 11:23am:

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 11:13am:

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 11:05am:

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 10:58am:

Is your wife controlling of you?

of course, she's a WIFE. that's what you women do Cheesy

how come we've moved on from kids to spouses?

Do you find your wife's "control" of you impinges on your autonomy or human decency? Or are you ust complaining about being asked to empy the dishwasher?

Come on John, you know in what way abusive spouses control their parners,

And we're talking about spouses because it is the premise of he article.

"A myth persists that men who abuse, assault, blackmail, stalk or terrorise their ex-partners can still be "good dads"."

I am extfinalending that to include women who do the above also.

I just think your definition is to broad. You were more specific when you added the stipulation that it must 'impinge on your autonomy or human decency' but that still doesn't go far enough. There is a lot of grey area in what can be considered 'controlling', 'abusive' or even 'threatening'.

Expand on what way abusive can be a grey area?

I'll give you an example, Mother. I'm working with a guy who didn't pass his Working With Children's check because the police arrested and put a standard AVO on him. He has no other convictions, charges or police history.

The charges and the AVO were later dropped. Now from what I understand, you can get a clear WWC if you don't have any final AVOs. An interrim police AVO doesn't rule you out.

In this case, the guy I'm referring to hasn't been rejected, he just needs to jump through a lot of hoops, get references, etc.

To me, this is excessive. Now we have DV laws in NSW and a zero-tolerance approach to DV by most police area commands, standard AVOs (not to threaten, intimidate or harass) are often the first response in police domestic call-outs. Not only are there gray areas in these sorts of cases, I've seen AVOs slapped on fathers, mothers, kids, the lot, and I've seen them for minor smacks, threats and even no smacks or threats at all.

Prohibiting someone from employment is a very serious decision and should not be taken lightly. People need to be a real threat to kids, and not just fulfil a criterion on a checklist; or in this case, not.

Agreed. Which is why i specify that any rulings on custody an access be individually determined in a court of law.

I'm aware in some states it's easier to get an AVO than it is here and i think that's certainly something that needs to be looked at. They are certainly not handed out in this state as a response to police call-outs.

For the record, i utterly condemn the spurious application of AVOs.

The wording in the article is pretty clear, however. We also know what the research tells us about filicide ... that there is almost always a history of violence. We know that with checks and balances in place, there are children that would still be alive ... there are children who would not currently be being abused.

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 1^st, 2017 at 4:22pm by mothra »

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 36843
Gender: female

Re: Rights of children must trump violent parents
Reply #50 - May 1^st, 2017 at 4:08pm

Enquiring mind wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 4:07pm:

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 1:04pm:

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 12:56pm:

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 12:50pm:

Are you arguing that if your friend did not immediately see he error of his ways and change he could have been a healthy parent?

I've never seen any reason to suspect his abilities as a parent and you would be hard pressed arguing otherwise.

I'm not disagreeing that someone who beats their wife up daily should have their rights removed, as far as I'm concerned they have no rights and should rot in jail. I just think it's a little simplistic to say all 'abusive parents' without first defining what exactly constitutes an abusive parent.

That's for courts to decide.

Read Alinta's link.

Read the ways in which the system failed Luke and Rosie Batty ... and children every single day.

I'd say there is no way a system could have protected Luke Batty at all, short of indefinitely detaining his father.

Why indefinitely?

Do you think he received all the treatment he required?

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

tickleandrose

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4201
Gender: female

Re: Rights of children must trump violent parents
Reply #51 - May 1^st, 2017 at 4:53pm

In this case, the father have undiagnosed mental illness for 20 years. And he was offered help, but refused. He also had an AVO in place. But on the day, the father was there with mother's consent. And the son asked to spend some more time with him as he do not get to see him alot. What happened after that was beyond anyone's imagination. So, I argue, that there is very little system can do for someone who refused help. And the legal system is not designed to punish people for pre crime or possibility of a crime.

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 36843
Gender: female

Re: Rights of children must trump violent parents
Reply #52 - May 1^st, 2017 at 4:58pm

tickleandrose wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 4:53pm:

In this case, the father have undiagnosed mental illness for 20 years. And he was offered help, but refused. He also had an AVO in place. But on the day, the father was there with mother's consent. And the son asked to spend some more time with him as he do not get to see him alot. What happened after that was beyond anyone's imagination. So, I argue, that there is very little system can do for someone who refused help. And the legal system is not designed to punish people for pre crime or possibility of a crime.

That kinda contradicts the Finding Into Death inquest that Alinta posted earlier in the thread, Tickle.

Here, have a read:

http://www.coronerscourt.vic.gov.au/resources/07cc4038-33f8-4e08-83b5-fd87bd386c...

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Rights of children must trump violent parents
Reply #53 - May 1^st, 2017 at 5:31pm

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 10:41am:

Rights of children must trump violent parents

define 'violent'?

where children live in fear is my guess......

so much violence doesnt show on the body only the minds....if I child is beaten he goes to school and it gets noticed...if a child lives in fear how do you spot that if the child doesnt even know he is living in fear until he is old enough to leave...

we have every right to give a child a childhood where they do not dread a footstep on the stairs...like i used too....

its cruel.

we have a duty..being firm is not the same as being controlling..well I dont think so.

Back to top

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Rights of children must trump violent parents
Reply #54 - May 1^st, 2017 at 5:38pm

tickleandrose wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 4:53pm:

In this case, the father have undiagnosed mental illness for 20 years. And he was offered help, but refused. He also had an AVO in place. But on the day, the father was there with mother's consent. And the son asked to spend some more time with him as he do not get to see him alot. What happened after that was beyond anyone's imagination. So, I argue, that there is very little system can do for someone who refused help. And the legal system is not designed to punish people for pre crime or possibility of a crime.

we should not rely on any laws to protect us people do not think about laws when they are out for revenge...there is no barrier

as a parent or ex partner you live with hope...

hope that the person will wake up and decide to be a good dad and do the right thing by his son...

no one in their right mind would imagine a dad killing his son in front of the boys friends and parents....

no one and no law would ever have made a difference unless this person was locked away for life maybe...

sadly the Batty family were not the only ones living in fear and dread to see it played out day after day is appalling for those who have lived through this kind of D.V.

I am sick of "mental illness" being used as an excuse...

Back to top

IP Logged

Enquiring mind

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 104946

Re: Rights of children must trump violent parents
Reply #55 - May 1^st, 2017 at 6:01pm

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 4:08pm:

Enquiring mind wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 4:07pm:

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 1:04pm:

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 12:56pm:

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 12:50pm:

Are you arguing that if your friend did not immediately see he error of his ways and change he could have been a healthy parent?

I've never seen any reason to suspect his abilities as a parent and you would be hard pressed arguing otherwise.

I'm not disagreeing that someone who beats their wife up daily should have their rights removed, as far as I'm concerned they have no rights and should rot in jail. I just think it's a little simplistic to say all 'abusive parents' without first defining what exactly constitutes an abusive parent.

That's for courts to decide.

Read Alinta's link.

Read the ways in which the system failed Luke and Rosie Batty ... and children every single day.

I'd say there is no way a system could have protected Luke Batty at all, short of indefinitely detaining his father.

Why indefinitely?

Do you think he received all the treatment he required?

Obviously not, but some mental health/attitude problems can't be cured, short of some Clockwork Orange dystopian nightmare.

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 78311 Gender:	Re: Rights of children must trump violent parents Reply #56 - May 1^st, 2017 at 6:13pm cods wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 5:31pm: where children live in fear is my guess.... as I understand it the kid wanted to see his father. ...... how can you argue he was living in fear?
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

Lord Herbert

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 34441
Gender: male

Re: Rights of children must trump violent parents
Reply #57 - May 1^st, 2017 at 6:32pm

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 10:58am:

But are you controlling of your wife? Is your wife controlling of you? Do you tell each other who you can see and when you can see them? When each other may leave he house? What to wear or not to wear? What to think and not to think?

What lessons are imparted on children of a person is controlling to their peers?

Aaah.

Mothra's referring to Muslims here, but in code.

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 36843
Gender: female

Re: Rights of children must trump violent parents
Reply #58 - May 2^nd, 2017 at 3:09pm

Enquiring mind wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 6:01pm:

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 4:08pm:

Enquiring mind wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 4:07pm:

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 1:04pm:

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 12:56pm:

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 12:50pm:

Are you arguing that if your friend did not immediately see he error of his ways and change he could have been a healthy parent?

I've never seen any reason to suspect his abilities as a parent and you would be hard pressed arguing otherwise.

I'm not disagreeing that someone who beats their wife up daily should have their rights removed, as far as I'm concerned they have no rights and should rot in jail. I just think it's a little simplistic to say all 'abusive parents' without first defining what exactly constitutes an abusive parent.

That's for courts to decide.

Read Alinta's link.

Read the ways in which the system failed Luke and Rosie Batty ... and children every single day.

I'd say there is no way a system could have protected Luke Batty at all, short of indefinitely detaining his father.

Why indefinitely?

Do you think he received all the treatment he required?

Obviously not, but some mental health/attitude problems can't be cured, short of some Clockwork Orange dystopian nightmare.

While this is true, the coroner's report states that Anderson would have responded to treatment, had he been provided with it.

We will, of course, never know for sure.

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 36843
Gender: female

Re: Rights of children must trump violent parents
Reply #59 - May 2^nd, 2017 at 3:13pm

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 6:13pm:

cods wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 5:31pm:

where children live in fear is my guess....

as I understand it the kid wanted to see his father. ...... how can you argue he was living in fear?

Not quite. Luke an Rosie turned up to cricket practice that day to find the father already there.

Rosie asked Luke if he would be ok and Luke said yes because his father was smiling and seemed in a good mood.

Rosie wanted to avoid having to call the police again to the cricket pitch to have him removed.

The coroner's report found that Luke parentalised his father. It wasn't a healthy relationship and the general thinking is that Anderson reacted as he did that day because Luke was getting older and pulling back from him.

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged