The Law Domestic violence, the memorial thread.

Remove this Banner Ad

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
36,271
33,599
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Are you seriously suggesting if someone refuses to accept responsibility, refuses to undergo counselling, that they should be granted access back again just in case that helps them improve?
That's the law mate.

A VRO is not a parenting order. Being the perpetrator of FV doesnt automatically deny a parent access to their kids. Heck, Parenting orders override VRO's in any event.

Dont get me wrong; Family violence is a huge part of determining what contact a parent has with their kids (and the type of contact, supervised, supported etc). But it's not a binary decision.

Family court orders for 'sole custody' are rare, and take years of proceedings to get. One can rock up to a Magistrates court, apply for in interim FVRO, get a hearing that day, have the matter heard ex parte (without the alleged perpetrator being there) with the laws of evidence not applying, and walk out that arvo with an interim FVRO that grants you effectively sole custody for 2 years.

All too often I see applicants (victims) who use the FVRO as a mechanism to deny a dad access to the kids, as much as it is for anything else. As the initial hearing is ex-parte and the laws of evidence dont apply, and due to the broad definition of cohesive or controlling behavior (and that amounting to family violence) it can be extremely easy these days in WA to obtain an interim FVRO, that sticks for 6 months or more and effectively makes the father homeless, and denies them access to their kids while its active.

I wouldn't say it's common, but I read 3-4 FVRO transcripts per day, and some of the things that get complained about are relatively minor (arguments, him acting like a dick, going through her phone, turning up at all hours etc), and some of it is quite serious (violence, drugs, threats to kill etc).

Courts are starting to get a bit savvy to this, and making provisions in the FVRO's for the perpetrator parent to have some access to the kids and mediation, but it's a tough balancing act for the Magistrates to make in a one off hearing with questionable evidence (it takes Family Court judges years and reams of evidence and expert witnesses to reach their decisions).

IME, its the interplay between access to the kids and FVRO were the real tension lies. A lot of perps are actually prepared to agree to Conduct Agreement Orders to stop contacting the victim, but the real point of contention remains the children.
 

Seeds

Hall of Famer
Sep 15, 2007
40,306
36,394
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
Filicide is actually oddly gender neutral form of murder with roughly a 50/50 split in offending between the genders.

That said, the majority of family homicides occur between intimate partners (60 per cent, with Filicide making up the next highest percentage at 16 percent), and three-quarters of intimate partner homicides involve males killing their female partners, often after she's had to endure a long period of control and violence.

Family homicide in Australia (aic.gov.au)
Men are physical stronger then Women.

both men and women are physically stringer then their children.

it’s not a male or female thing. It’s a physical thing.

that explains the outcomes. If it was driven by other factors related to being a male then males would kill more children then females. But they don’t.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
36,271
33,599
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Men are physical stronger then Women.

both men and women are physically stringer then their children.

it’s not a male or female thing. It’s a physical thing.

that explains the outcomes.
No, that's not the case; its not just down to physical strength. At all.

I'm stronger than my girlfriend for example. That doesn't explain any outcome, other than if we got into a physical struggle, that I'd likely win.

It doesn't explain why men are controlling, dominating and resorting to violence and threats at home. I mean, if you feel you need to do any of that, you need to have a good look at yourself first, and your relationship second.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Seeds

Hall of Famer
Sep 15, 2007
40,306
36,394
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
No, that's not the case; its not just down to physical strength. At all.

I'm stronger than my girlfriend for example. That doesn't explain any outcome, other than if we got into a physical struggle, that I'd likely win.

It doesn't explain why men are controlling, dominating and resorting to violence and threats at home. I mean, if you feel you need to do any of that, you need to have a good look at yourself first, and your relationship second.
Women are incredibly controlling. certainly no less so then men.

as for dominating and resorting to violence that all results from physical dominance. partiarchal social dominance also ultimately stems from the physical dominance of men from the past when war and manual labour were the primary trades.
 

Leeda

Talons B Sharp
Sep 26, 2012
7,344
1,269
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Women are incredibly controlling. certainly no less so then men.

as for dominating and resorting to violence that all results from physical dominance. partiarchal social dominance also ultimately stems from the physical dominance of men from the past when war and manual labour were the primary trades.
no you are duping the good people of Australia.. we don't crap on people nor do we languish at the ridicules perception that we
are 'hanging you out to dry'...
subtle notifications need to tell you that we are running the same race as you. and we are trying as hard as you to collect the
same ride...
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
36,271
33,599
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Women are incredibly controlling. certainly no less so then men.
Yeah, but that control is rarely exerted in the same context (i.e. men are usually more financially stable, stronger, and more socially mobile) is it?

If a 5'2 woman tells you to do something, it's not quite the same if a 6 and a half foot tall dude (whos responsible for the main source of income in the relationship) does the same, against the backdrop of male physical violence in DV scenarios generally.

If I want someone weaker than me to do something, it's a lot more easy than making someone stronger than me do that thing.
 

Seeds

Hall of Famer
Sep 15, 2007
40,306
36,394
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
no you are duping the good people of Australia.. we don't crap on people nor do we languish at the ridicules perception that we
are 'hanging you out to dry'...
subtle notifications need to tell you that we are running the same race as you. and we are trying as hard as you to collect the
same ride...
I’m liking this post despite having no idea what you are talking about cos I don’t want to appear stupid in case this is genuinely insightful and not gibberish.
 

Taylor

Community Leader
Jul 16, 2009
52,609
58,220
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
If I want someone weaker than me to do something, it's a lot more easy than making someone stronger than me do that thing.
This underpins the entire power dynamic between men and women.

We either control you via your desire for our bodies, we manipulate your perspective into thinking something was your idea in the first place, or you were right the first time.

There is also the childish sulk, but I don't include that in manipulation even though it is a form of it. But that's like calling a cannon a strategic weapon when a small knife used with precision will be equally effective with far less mess.

This is one of those jokes with strong roots in reality.
 

Leeda

Talons B Sharp
Sep 26, 2012
7,344
1,269
AFL Club
Hawthorn
no you are duping the good people of Australia.. we don't crap on people nor do we languish at the ridicules perception that we
are 'hanging you out to dry'...
subtle notifications need to tell you that we are running the same race as you. and we are trying as hard as you to collect the
same ride...
über is not my ham.. um jam... lol,,,
 

Leeda

Talons B Sharp
Sep 26, 2012
7,344
1,269
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I’m liking this post despite having no idea what you are talking about cos I don’t want to appear stupid in case this is genuinely insightful and not gibberish.
thanks dude.. it does make no sense but it also makes sense if you track back and forth wth six degrees of separation..
we are talking wrong and right end an the dude who captures my ridiculous nonsense will run to the toilet in raptures...
so you are still with me? happy to reply in the sad sack that is my run down the level... shuffle the trains to Southern Cross
station...
 

Seeds

Hall of Famer
Sep 15, 2007
40,306
36,394
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
Yeah, but that control is rarely exerted in the same context (i.e. men are usually more financially stable, stronger, and more socially mobile) is it?

If a 5'2 woman tells you to do something, it's not quite the same if a 6 and a half foot tall dude (whos responsible for the main source of income in the relationship) does the same, against the backdrop of male physical violence in DV scenarios generally.

If I want someone weaker than me to do something, it's a lot more easy than making someone stronger than me do that thing.
But now aren’t you making my point? I.e. it’s ultimately about being physically stronger.

control is about wanting order in your life and pushing for that order. control doesnt Have to be taken. It can be handed over. Thus it’s not a function of physical domination. Men often give their partners the ability to control them because 1) they see that it makes their partners happy, 2) they are worried their partners will leave them if they don’t give up control or 3) they like being mothered and ordered around by their partners.


violence however is rarely given. It’s usually always taken against ones will. It’s therefore overwhelming done by the physically dominant.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
17,447
17,620
AFL Club
Sydney
No sh*t, but the point is they were all psycho scum who could not have been stopped with more screening, less anti man media, bans on video games, or more hugs.

The notion that this guy is not that bad because he just wants to be together forever with his child (something being argued elsewhere today, and in the past with similar cases) is insane.
Any mental issues are a direct consequence of not getting what they want. It's that simple.
They didn't kill anyone else, they didn't inflict DV on anyone else. The partner and the child copped it all.

Not getting what you want isn't an excuse we should ever accept for one person killing another.
 

MarcMaverick

Chunky Monkey
Nov 20, 2008
6,054
5,309
#freeMelbourne #SackDan
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
The Super Saiyans, Tampa Bay Buccs
The problem is that neither gender is free from sin . Both are capable of DV, however we only focus on the father being the perpetrator and the mother and child being the victims.

Mothers are capable of child abuse as well however:
a) It's more insidious e.g. emotional blackmail, psychological warfare etc..
b) The legal system makes a lot more compromises for women in that situation to the point of a much more lenient sentence, far more legal avenues afforded to the mothers than fathers in the same situation.
c) Its hardly reported on thew news/MSM for fear that the narratives that mothers cannot be perpetrators of DV, that they are always supposed to be the victim in this.

If they do report that a mother was the perpetrator of DV the media will always find an excuse or will try to try to protect her in some way from the same criticisms that they would if the perpetrator was the father. Like , she was stressed, she wasn't thinking straight, she was depressed/ had anxiety, If the perpetrator was the father the media would be all over him, like "How dare this monster do this to his wife/ child! He should be protecting them! He should be locked up for life!" no such concessions/allowances for him, though I understand because of biology .

This kind of thinking will only make things worse rather than better. You can't pretended to care about DV when it is believed that its only the mothers being the victims.
 
Last edited:

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
17,447
17,620
AFL Club
Sydney
The problem is that neither gender is free from sin . Both are capable of DV, however we only focus on the father being the perpetrator and the mother and child being the victims.

Mothers are capable of child abuse as well however:
a) It's more insidious e.g. emotional blackmail, psychological warfare etc..
b) The legal system makes a lot more compromises for women in that situation to the point of a much more lenient sentence, far more legal avenues afforded to the mothers than fathers in the same situation.
c) Its hardly reported on thew news/MSM for fear that the narratives that mothers cannot be perpetrators of DV, that they are always supposed to be the victim in this.

If they do report that a mother was the perpetrator of DV the media will always find an excuse or will try to try to protect her in some way from the same criticisms that they would if the perpetrator was the father. Like , she was stressed, she wasn't thinking straight, she was depressed/ had anxiety, If the perpetrator was the father the media would be all over him, like "How dare this monster do this to his wife/ child! He should be protecting them! He should be locked up for life!" no such concessions/allowances for him, though I understand because of biology .

This kind of thinking will only make things worse rather than better. You cant pretended to care about DV when it is believed that its only the mothers being the victims.
Children are capable of DV too.
So are grandparents.

DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT 1 WOMAN A WEEK IS KILLED BY THEIR PARTNER.
 

MarcMaverick

Chunky Monkey
Nov 20, 2008
6,054
5,309
#freeMelbourne #SackDan
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
The Super Saiyans, Tampa Bay Buccs
Children are capable of DV too.
So are grandparents.

DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT 1 WOMAN A WEEK IS KILLED BY THEIR PARTNER.
If that partner was a female herself the media would either
a)Proffer a litany of excuses for her or
b) Exonerate her of any wrongdoing

Also they wouldn't be able to milk it, like, if say the partner was a male.

Also how many men are opting out of a family life/committing suicide because the law enforcement, legal system and media are heavily tilted in favour of the females? The reason that is not being reported is because the media doesn't want to ruin their narrative that the casualties out of all of this are females.

Doesn't change the fact that the only reason theses causes were created, was because the narrative is that women are the victims. If they were being genuine about stopping DV they would treat gender as equals, that would include, conceding that females are perpetrators and that males are victims.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
17,447
17,620
AFL Club
Sydney
If that partner was a female herself the media would either
a)Proffer a litany of excuses for her or
b) Exonerate her of any wrongdoing

Also they wouldn't be able to milk it, like, if say the partner was a male.

Also how many men are opting out of a family life/committing suicide because the law enforcement, legal system and media are heavily tilted in favour of the females? The reason that is not being reported is because the media doesn't want to ruin their narrative that the casualties out of all of this are females.

Doesn't change the fact that the only reason theses causes were created, was because the narrative is that women are the victims. If they were being genuine about stopping DV they would treat gender as equals, that would include, conceding that females are perpetrators and that males are victims.

If you think that there is justification for a man killing his partner and/or his children then you've just made the case for why law enforcement, the legal system and the media should be heavily tilted in favour of females.
 

MarcMaverick

Chunky Monkey
Nov 20, 2008
6,054
5,309
#freeMelbourne #SackDan
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
The Super Saiyans, Tampa Bay Buccs
If you think that there is justification for a man killing his partner and/or his children then you've just made the case for why law enforcement, the legal system and the media should be heavily tilted in favour of females.

It already is, and your attitude of scoffing and ignoring the idea of women being perpetrators is making it worse. You don't really care about resolving the issues of DV until the victim is a mother, do you?

In no way shape or from am I justifying that men kill their partners and or children, however you are blatantly ignoring the fact that mothers can be the perpetrators or that they can kill their husbands or their own children.

In other words you don't care about the lives of children if the victim is also their father, a male, that was abused at home by the wife. You laugh and scoff at him saying "yeah right, what can a woman do?" and disregard his story.

In your attitude if all the victims of DV were male then you would be "earth keeps spinning, no one cares". If however, one of them was a female you would be "earth must stop spinning"

If 1000s of husbands and their children died right now because of DV from their wives, you wouldn't care. The 1000s of wives that have committed such crimes could walk as far as you and the aforementioned societal mechanisms are concerned

You want to put away dangerous fathers, you're only doing half the job. You need to apply the same standard to mothers that you would for fathers or otherwise this keeps repeating.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
36,271
33,599
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Also how many men are opting out of a family life/committing suicide because the law enforcement, legal system and media are heavily tilted in favour of the females?
How is law enforcement and the legal system 'heavily tilted' in favor of women?

And presuming you can prove they are, how do you explain the fact that (notwithstanding this bias) women are still overwhelmingly the primary victims of family violence, including intimate partner homicide?

Seriously mate, you come across as someone who has been subject to a restraining order, and then had an unfavorable Family Court decision against you. IME the guys with complaints like yours nearly always have been subject to one or both.
 

MarcMaverick

Chunky Monkey
Nov 20, 2008
6,054
5,309
#freeMelbourne #SackDan
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
The Super Saiyans, Tampa Bay Buccs
How is law enforcement and the legal system 'heavily tilted' in favor of women?

And presuming you can prove they are, how do you explain the fact that (notwithstanding this bias) women are still overwhelmingly the primary victims of family violence, including intimate partner homicide?

Seriously mate, you come across as someone who has been subject to a restraining order, and then had an unfavorable Family Court decision against you. IME the guys with complaints like yours nearly always have been subject to one or both.
1) How many women are allowed to obtain access to the children regardless of how horrible they have been to their husband/ children are and how many men have to pay alimony regardless of how compassionate they were during the whole ordeal? Imagine the outcry from society if the courts favoured the husband on even the odd occasion.

2)
1619578865346.png

That and the media refuses to report on the news that females are the aggressor because it dampens their narrative. As I said, abuse doesn't have to be physical.

3) You don't know me, you have never met me before, so how can you come up with that conclusion/assumption about me? I have seen it first hand, though, with my 2nd cousin who was a very compassionate man who was abused mentally by his now ex-wife and he still had to relinquish the custody of his children only seeing them once a fortnight despite even my mother and aunt telling him that his ex-wife was a very toxic and horrible woman and that he should have the sole custody of his kids, especially his son. He eventually got somewhat custody of his children but not after a decade-long battle in the court system. He wouldn't have had to do such an arduous and gruelling trial if roles were reversed.

So you see it hasn't happened to me personally but I have seen how horrible a woman can be in a relationship and that despite that, the law and courts are obligated to side with the woman regardless of the types of individuals they are.

That's why I believe that all of the DV's companies are doing only half the work. Because if they did a proper job in curtailing it they would have to admit that men can be victims of DV as well. Otherwise they don't care about ending it and only look like white knights in the process.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
36,271
33,599
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
1) How many women are allowed to obtain access to the children regardless of how horrible they have been to their husband/ children are and how many men have to pay alimony regardless of how compassionate they were during the whole ordeal? Imagine the outcry from society if the courts favoured the husband on even the odd occasion.
Literally none. The LAW doesn't work that way.

Here is the relevant law in WA for restraining orders and Family Law (minus WA's Family Court Act):

RESTRAINING ORDERS ACT 1997 (austlii.edu.au)

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 (austlii.edu.au)

Please find for me the section that favors women. Or you can save yourself some time, because there isnt any.

That and the media refuses to report on the news that females are the aggressor because it dampens their narrative.
What complete and utter bullshit.

3) You don't know me, you have never met me before, so how can you come up with that conclusion/assumption about me? I have seen it first hand
There we go. You do have experience with VRO's and Family Court. Through the lens of your Cousin (so one side of the story).

He wouldn't have had to do such an arduous and gruelling trial if roles were reversed.
You're aware she went through the identical process as well right?

So you see it hasn't happened to me personally but I have seen how horrible a woman can be in a relationship and that despite that, the law and courts are obligated to side with the woman regardless of the types of individuals they are.
No, they're not.

Again mate, I literally posted the legislation above. Please point out to me where this 'obligation to side with the woman' can be found in either Act.

I'm a Lawyer and I practice in this area, and you're wholly wrong. Complains like your are always made by men who have had VRO's whacked on them, and have had to navigate the (prolonged) Family Court system, or people close to them.

The reality of the situation is that Men (just like your cousin) are entitled to a default presumption (under the law) to 'Equal and shared parental responsibility' with the Mother, and (when such an order is made) the Courts are then legally required to consider the viability of 50/50 parenting arrangements.

Which it sounds like is pretty much what your cousin actually got.

As to the length of your cousins proceedings, 10 years is insane even for the Family Court. To be completely frank, I dont believe you on this point. Two years is about right, even for contested matters that go to trial.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
17,447
17,620
AFL Club
Sydney
It already is, and your attitude of scoffing and ignoring the idea of women being perpetrators is making it worse. You don't really care about resolving the issues of DV until the victim is a mother, do you?

In no way shape or from am I justifying that men kill their partners and or children, however you are blatantly ignoring the fact that mothers can be the perpetrators or that they can kill their husbands or their own children.

In other words you don't care about the lives of children if the victim is also their father, a male, that was abused at home by the wife. You laugh and scoff at him saying "yeah right, what can a woman do?" and disregard his story.

In your attitude if all the victims of DV were male then you would be "earth keeps spinning, no one cares". If however, one of them was a female you would be "earth must stop spinning"

If 1000s of husbands and their children died right now because of DV from their wives, you wouldn't care. The 1000s of wives that have committed such crimes could walk as far as you and the aforementioned societal mechanisms are concerned

You want to put away dangerous fathers, you're only doing half the job. You need to apply the same standard to mothers that you would for fathers or otherwise this keeps repeating.
Your rant, most of which can be ignored and provides a rather disturbing insight into your thought processes, fails to provide a reason why men kill their kids.
Why do men kill their kids when things don't work out for them?
Why are they punishing the kids?

What sort of a f'king hero kills their kids just because they don't get their way?
It doesn't matter how hard it is, how many things you think are against you, there is absolutely no reason EVER to kill your own children. NONE. NEVER.

The only reason they kill their kids is because they want to get back at their partners.
Everything else is just a BS excuse.

In a nutshell, that's the kind of mindset most of these DV heros have. It's all about me. What I want is the only thing that matters.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad