Luke Batty's parents were not together when he was born, but his mum Rosie was told it was very important a child have access to both parents.

But custody visits with her volatile ex-partner Greg Anderson took an "unbearable" toll on her and Luke, Rosie Batty said on Monday, speaking after the release of the coroner's report into her son's murder.

"It seems to be that the perpetrators have rights that are not right for the child," she said.

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

It's a cultural shibboleth that remains largely unexamined (and given copious oxygen by men's rights groups), yet often informs custody agreements.

"This notion you can be a great father and an abusive partner - it's not possible," says Professor Cathy Humphries, one of a handful of family violence experts who have supported Ms Batty through the harrowing coronial process.

Luke suffered, and began counselling because he was distressed by contact with his volatile father, who he loved.

In Ms Batty's case, her good relationship with Luke meant child protection deemed her a "protective parent" and closed the case.

But not before workers insisted Ms Batty sign an undertaking she would make sure Anderson didn't take photos of their son, and his access to Luke would be supervised.

What kind of a system makes women take responsibility for their violent partners' behaviour?

In his report, Coroner Ian Gray recommends an approach that puts the welfare of children - and that of their mothers -  first.

Where one parent is assessed as "protective", they should be given support by the Department of Human Services to manage the risk posed by the other parent, he writes.

Similarly, the department should end its practice of asking women to supervise or manage the behaviour of the other parent.

Judge Gray also makes recommendations about how child protection workers should respond to family violence - some seem so obvious, it is sobering they must be made at all.

For example, when assessing the risk to a child, workers should find out if their parents have any family violence notifications with the police or relevant domestic violence organisations.

Because intervention orders can be varied to allow for custody arrangements, there continue to be many women who have to negotiate with their former abuser, including - as Ms Batty noted yesterday - arranging for their children to visit the perpetrator in prison.

"We know that what is best for the child has to be paramount, and right now [we privilege] what the parents want to fulfil their own needs," she said.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/rights-of-children-must-trump-violent-parents-...

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


I would say abusive, controlling, threatening ... physically or psychologically.

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 10:46am:



Do you think someone that displays those qualities is a safe person for a child to be around?

Do you think they are teaching the child appropriate strategies for life?

The line must be drawn at the threat of physical harm.

Personally I think people that let their kids drink coke should have their children removed, but that's just my opinion.

Gordon wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 10:57am:



You don;t believe in the deficits of psychological harm?

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



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 extending that to include women who do the above also.

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



Expand on what way abusive can be a grey area?

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 10:59am:


Better to focus on preventing kids from physical violence and neglect of basics rather than diving into a rabbit hole