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

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


if I spank my son is that abusive?

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 11:47am:


I don't like it, but it isn't abusive. No.

Were you intending to cause suffering, damage and harm when you spanked him?

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 11:48am:


according to you ... but according to many it is.

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 11:48am:


I meant for it to hurt him enough so that he would remember it. No point in spanking them otherwise.

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 11:49am:


i wouldn't call someone who spanks their kids on occasion violent, unless they did it for their own pleasure.

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 11:53am:



We've already covered that. I asked you to define an abusive spouse.

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 11:55am:


someone who repeatedly and deliberately hits their spouse is probably the simplest definition I can think of at the moment.
I wouldn't call someone who lashes out once or twice, over an extended period of time, in a moment of uncontrolled rage as abusive.

Alinta wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 11:58am:


Thanks Alinta. Reading.

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 12:00pm:



Where did i say that, John?

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 12:04pm:


Yet we've established that spankings aren't violent in the eyes of the law of Australia.

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 12:07pm:


law also says parents have rights.

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 12:13pm:


Which must come secondary to the rights of the child.

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 12:19pm:



typical or not (and I'm not convinced that it is as uncommon as you make out), your proposal would label him an abusive and violent husband and have taken his kids away from him

that's why I asked you to be more specific. I don't think 'labels' work. I think each case must be decided on it's own merit.

mothra wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 12:29pm:


nope, I'm still working on your thread title. 

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 12:30pm:




Many of your questions will be answered by reading the article, John ... 

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 12:48pm:


Look carefully at the terminology, John. She is talking of being a good parent and abusive spouse at the same time.

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?

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



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.

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


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

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


Why indefinitely?

Do you think he received all the treatment he required?

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



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...

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




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...

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


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

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


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.

mothra wrote on May 2^nd, 2017 at 3:09pm:


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

mothra wrote on May 2^nd, 2017 at 3:17pm:


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.

Mattyfisk wrote on May 2^nd, 2017 at 3:21pm:



Hence the article of the OP, and the thread.

Mattyfisk wrote on May 2^nd, 2017 at 4:20pm:


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?

mothra wrote on May 2^nd, 2017 at 4:25pm:


Sorry, no. I'll have a peek if I can pull out of Rhino and Big Hole's bottoms.