Home Articles Forum Wiki Poll Garden Contact

 
 
 
  
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
 
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

  Australian Politics Forum › General Discussion › General Board › Rights of children must trump violent parents
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print
Rights of children must trump violent parents (Read 3897 times)
Enquiring mind
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 104908
Re: Rights of children must trump violent parents
Reply #60 - May 2nd, 2017 at 3:16pm  
mothra wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 3:09pm:
Enquiring mind wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 6:01pm:
mothra wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 4:08pm:
Enquiring mind wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 4:07pm:
mothra wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 1:04pm:
John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 12:56pm:
mothra wrote on May 1st, 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.


A bit of an unknown, isn't it? He would have kept appointments, would have taken his meds, they would have worked...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mothra
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 36843
Gender: female
Re: Rights of children must trump violent parents
Reply #61 - May 2nd, 2017 at 3:17pm  
Enquiring mind wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 3:16pm:
mothra wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 3:09pm:
Enquiring mind wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 6:01pm:
mothra wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 4:08pm:
Enquiring mind wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 4:07pm:
mothra wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 1:04pm:
John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 12:56pm:
mothra wrote on May 1st, 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.


A bit of an unknown, isn't it? He would have kept appointments, would have taken his meds, they would have worked...



In my opinion, complicity with treatment should have been a prerequisite to supervised access with his son.
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: 104908
Re: Rights of children must trump violent parents
Reply #62 - May 2nd, 2017 at 3:21pm  
mothra wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 3:17pm:
Enquiring mind wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 3:16pm:
mothra wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 3:09pm:
Enquiring mind wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 6:01pm:
mothra wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 4:08pm:
Enquiring mind wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 4:07pm:
mothra wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 1:04pm:
John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 12:56pm:
mothra wrote on May 1st, 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.


A bit of an unknown, isn't it? He would have kept appointments, would have taken his meds, they would have worked...



In my opinion, complicity with treatment should have been a prerequisite to supervised access with his son.


And these sorts of care orders are often made. The problem is they're not enforceable. Legally, a parent is not breaking any criminal laws by breaching family court orders.

Only an AVO can enforce this sort of compliance. Theoretically, anyway.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 34303
Gender: male
Re: Rights of children must trump violent parents
Reply #63 - May 2nd, 2017 at 3:22pm  
cods wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 5:38pm:
tickleandrose wrote on May 1st, 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...



So what do you suggest ...... no laws? Anarchy?

Society doesn't function without laws.

Do you honestly consider that there are no laws that can be relied on to prevent crime?

Be that DV or any other crime.
Back to top
 
"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais
 
IP Logged
 
mothra
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 36843
Gender: female
Re: Rights of children must trump violent parents
Reply #64 - May 2nd, 2017 at 3:23pm  
Enquiring mind wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 3:21pm:
mothra wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 3:17pm:
Enquiring mind wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 3:16pm:
mothra wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 3:09pm:
Enquiring mind wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 6:01pm:
mothra wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 4:08pm:
Enquiring mind wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 4:07pm:
mothra wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 1:04pm:
John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 12:56pm:
mothra wrote on May 1st, 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.


A bit of an unknown, isn't it? He would have kept appointments, would have taken his meds, they would have worked...



In my opinion, complicity with treatment should have been a prerequisite to supervised access with his son.


And these sorts of care orders are often made. The problem is they're not enforceable. Legally, a parent is not breaking any criminal laws by breaching family court orders.

Only an AVO can enforce this sort of compliance. Theoretically, anyway.



Hence the article of the OP, and the thread.
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: 104908
Re: Rights of children must trump violent parents
Reply #65 - May 2nd, 2017 at 4:20pm  
mothra wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 3:23pm:
Enquiring mind wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 3:21pm:
mothra wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 3:17pm:
Enquiring mind wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 3:16pm:
mothra wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 3:09pm:
Enquiring mind wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 6:01pm:
mothra wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 4:08pm:
Enquiring mind wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 4:07pm:
mothra wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 1:04pm:
John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 12:56pm:
mothra wrote on May 1st, 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.


A bit of an unknown, isn't it? He would have kept appointments, would have taken his meds, they would have worked...



In my opinion, complicity with treatment should have been a prerequisite to supervised access with his son.


And these sorts of care orders are often made. The problem is they're not enforceable. Legally, a parent is not breaking any criminal laws by breaching family court orders.

Only an AVO can enforce this sort of compliance. Theoretically, anyway.



Hence the article of the OP, and the thread.


Exactlement, dear, but remember - these are two totally different jurisdictions: federal for the Family Court and state for the criminal courts. Add Children's Courts for state care matters, and that's another.

They don't overlap, and applications for each need to be heard in different courts.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mothra
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 36843
Gender: female
Re: Rights of children must trump violent parents
Reply #66 - May 2nd, 2017 at 4:25pm  
Enquiring mind wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 4:20pm:
mothra wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 3:23pm:
Enquiring mind wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 3:21pm:
mothra wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 3:17pm:
Enquiring mind wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 3:16pm:
mothra wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 3:09pm:
Enquiring mind wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 6:01pm:
mothra wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 4:08pm:
Enquiring mind wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 4:07pm:
mothra wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 1:04pm:
John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 12:56pm:
mothra wrote on May 1st, 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.


A bit of an unknown, isn't it? He would have kept appointments, would have taken his meds, they would have worked...



In my opinion, complicity with treatment should have been a prerequisite to supervised access with his son.


And these sorts of care orders are often made. The problem is they're not enforceable. Legally, a parent is not breaking any criminal laws by breaching family court orders.

Only an AVO can enforce this sort of compliance. Theoretically, anyway.



Hence the article of the OP, and the thread.


Exactlement, dear, but remember - these are two totally different jurisdictions: federal for the Family Court and state for the criminal courts. Add Children's Courts for state care matters, and that's another.

They don't overlap, and applications for each need to be heard in different courts.



Indeed. I believe the technical term is 'shemozzle'.

I'm interested Karnal, did you read the coroner's report?

What do you think of the recommendations made within it?
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 #67 - May 2nd, 2017 at 4:29pm  
Gnads wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 3:22pm:
cods wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 5:38pm:
tickleandrose wrote on May 1st, 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...



So what do you suggest ...... no laws? Anarchy?


OF COURSE NOT...I SAID DONT RELY ON IT TO PROTECT YOU..  meaning .. think the person will sit and think ooops I might get into trouble if i do that..

dont you get it? these people male and female are out for REVENGE  its a good old human frailty and some people think a piece of paper called a DVO protects them;; ha


Society doesn't function without laws.

Do you honestly consider that there are no laws that can be relied on to prevent crime?

Be that DV or any other crime.



why are our jails full and our cemeteries being filled with young women and children??????


is that because we dont have the LAWS.. or because people take not the slightest notice of them..



you I guess are one of the few people in Australia who has never had a speed ticket or parking fine... Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


of course.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Enquiring mind
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 104908
Re: Rights of children must trump violent parents
Reply #68 - May 3rd, 2017 at 10:02am  
mothra wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 4:25pm:
Enquiring mind wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 4:20pm:
mothra wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 3:23pm:
Enquiring mind wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 3:21pm:
mothra wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 3:17pm:
Enquiring mind wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 3:16pm:
mothra wrote on May 2nd, 2017 at 3:09pm:
Enquiring mind wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 6:01pm:
mothra wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 4:08pm:
Enquiring mind wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 4:07pm:
mothra wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 1:04pm:
John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2017 at 12:56pm:
mothra wrote on May 1st, 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.


A bit of an unknown, isn't it? He would have kept appointments, would have taken his meds, they would have worked...



In my opinion, complicity with treatment should have been a prerequisite to supervised access with his son.


And these sorts of care orders are often made. The problem is they're not enforceable. Legally, a parent is not breaking any criminal laws by breaching family court orders.

Only an AVO can enforce this sort of compliance. Theoretically, anyway.



Hence the article of the OP, and the thread.


Exactlement, dear, but remember - these are two totally different jurisdictions: federal for the Family Court and state for the criminal courts. Add Children's Courts for state care matters, and that's another.

They don't overlap, and applications for each need to be heard in different courts.



Indeed. I believe the technical term is 'shemozzle'.

I'm interested Karnal, did you read the coroner's report?

What do you think of the recommendations made within it?


Sorry, no. I'll have a peek if I can pull out of Rhino and Big Hole's bottoms.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
 
 

  « Forum ‹ Board Top of this page

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge