Aussie feminists seek gov't monitoring of men's groups

[Brent]

Echoes of the Status of Women Canada proposal of a few years ago.

Forwarded from Australia:

Amongst other things, this article/speech by Mandy Dunn, Sole Parents'
Union (a feminist mothers' rights activist group, headquartered in
Sydney and akin to the NCSMC) is an attempt to deny, discredit, diminish
and dismiss the lived experience of separated and disenfranchised
fathers and their children.

Additionally, it contains a chilling call for government to monitor and
censor what men can say and who they can associate with (online). It is
an example of what a fully feminist sexist society would be like.

Quote: Recommendations

In the context of the continued and growing use of the internet by FRAO
[Fathers' Rights Activist Organisations]  to develop misogynist sites
inciting hatred, and the number of growing discussion groups used to
promote anti-mother propaganda, it is suggested that closer monitoring
of these groups be undertaken by either a hate watch organisation,
Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) or by HREOC to focus on
gender social relations (Bouchard et al 2003). Such monitoring should be
used to provide warnings to government agencies such as the Child
Support Agency and the Family Court, also politicians, and non
government organisations which are the target of hate actions. Authors
of hate mail and incitements to violence should be investigated and
prosecuted for promoting violence. Persistent offenders should be
identified on a national security register.

The data from men's hate speech could be collated and used to inform
social policy development and women's status. Further that a family law
media awareness network should be established for those who intercept
with the family law system to provide accurate information and to
counter misinformation and provided informed information about family
law and gender social relations. For example FRAO claims that fathers
are subject to bias in family law is a provably false claim that is
wrongly used to recruit men to the FRAO agenda and to discourage them
from reaching positive workable post-separation parenting arrangements
solely in order to support the FRAO case. Users of the family law system
should not have to interpret it from a fathers' rights framework but one
from the perspective of child safety and best interests.

Also it is proposed that the "Window on Women" site be the central
information, reference and factual data site for journalists and
academics and others to access on the status of women in various areas
such as family law. Further that publication of gendered data must
always be supported by analyses that provided the context, since without
it the data only fuels the masculinist discourses. This site and social
responsibility should be broadly publicised. Also the establishment of a
strategy to develop and support the dissemination by women's groups of
positive egalitarian messages to balance masculinist discourse and FRA
propaganda.

NB 1 There is no government funded and provided "Window on Men"

Much of what passes for "women's" (and feminist) activities - groups,
documents, books, 'academics', courts, media, internet and government
funded - is misandrist and contains offensive misandry.  One example is
the feminist denial and rejection of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS),
while at the same time eagerly accepting a male-only villain version
invented by a South Australian women, which she terms "Maternal
Alienation Syndrome".

NB 2 The Recommendations, toward the end of the article/speech (and
above in bold), seek - in a similar manner to feminist recommendations
from Canada several years ago - to monitor and close down sites for
separated fathers and to prevent Dads from discussing and publicising
their plight.

Hypocritically, feminists believe they have the right to shout out
misandrist (male-hating) hate-speech and then categorise any response as
misogyny (hatred of females).

Lindsay

--------------------------------------------

http://forum.dadsontheair.com/viewtopic.php?t=2810&start=10

Post subject: DOTA thorn in side of feminist hate groups

Administration / Dads on the Air Host / Forum Moderator

Posted: Sat 9 April 2005

DOTA > Thorn in side of feminist hate groups.

Here's an excerpted example from the Mandy Dunn / Sole Parent Union
mothers' rights document:

Spreading the word

Much of the propaganda of the SPCA's and the FF and their supporters in
the media and in parliament is published and broadcast, often without a
counterbalancing voices from women's organisations or groups, or even
the views of those with family law or with social policy expertise (King
2003).

FRAO [Fathers' Rights Activist Organisations] longed for an unfettered
forum to air their views and sought a ways to gain greater public
support. This resulted in the development in 2001 of "Dads On the Air"
(DOA), a weekly broadcast community radio 2GL (outer Sydney, NSW,).
Although, more significantly, for those outside the broadcast area, DOA
provides web-casts and internet-based message boards aimed specifically
at fathers who have separated, assuming that they are unhappy with how
they, as men and fathers, are treated by the courts, and/or child
support agency and/or other family law infrastructure. The SPCA's
website states that "the Shared Parenting Council of Australia is
pleased to support the Dads on the Air (DOA) program on 2GLF every
Monday. To hear this program as an Audio Webcast click the link below.
Dads on the Air Webcast" (SPCA 2003ii). The reason behind such an
endorsement of DOA is that often SPCA leadership are regularly guests of
the program. FF's President Warwick Marsh has also been a guest of DOA
programs.

Additionally, since their formation both the FF and SPCA have sought to
fund "an extensive publicity and advertising campaign designed to inform
and educate the Australian public" (SPCA 2002iv p3, FF 2002). Both these
groups have media strategies aimed at gaining greater public support for
their respective and collective agendas (FF 2003i, SPCA 2002i). To this
end, they are also aided by media commentators like Bettina Arndt who
have actively lobbied on behalf of, and aided FRAO by giving them access
to decision makers and giving them a forum to air their views and to
influence public opinion (FF 2003v FF 2003 vii). Ms Arndt's influence
extends beyond her media commentator role, with her public speaking and
her appointments to many consultative roles by the Coalition government
in advisory groups such as the Family Pathways Advisory Group,
Ministers' Advisory group on child care and child development
(Attorney-Generals Department 2000,The Age 2003).

With greater access to technology many individuals are able to link with
each other, small vocal groups, or with larger national organisations
like the SPCA utilising the internet and airwaves. Also, they are able
to link nationally and internationally so there is an extensive
internet-based network of e-list discussion groups and websites on which
to further strategise in response to their grievances about family law
issues and have an internet presence. Some members are on multiple
lists, creating repetition with cross-postings with information
appearing on several sites and lists (some 28 identified national lists
associated with SPCA alone, many more international e-list
affiliations). All FRAO sites and e-lists are anti-feminist.

Webcasts and websites like Dads on the Air (DOAw), e-lists like Ozydads
and the shared parenting yahoo list that hosts message boards and forums
plays a considerable role in supplying space and information, sometimes
launching vitriolic attacks that quickly escalate into hate speech
and/or incite hatred on/about individual and collective women,
feminists, judiciary, government agencies and organisations that
intersect with family law and/or their political agenda. For example
after a DOA broadcasts, it is common to find anonymous individuals
posting their grievances on message boards, including some overseas FRA
posts. Easy access to email facilitates a quick and effective way of
contacting opponents, fellow supporters, media and politicians and is
part of an essential FRAO tool kit.  

Here's the full piece by Mandy Dunn (Sole Parents Union).

How much taxpayer money went into supplying this masterpiece?

Mandy Dunn - SBS: Mum's the Word
Image: http://sbs.com.au/media/mums_ep4_2mandyd.jpg
http://www.sbs.com.au/mumstheword/old.php3?p=41

In charge of the Sole Parents Union and a single mother herself, MANDY
DUNN knows how difficult it is to do all the parenting alone while
trying to have a life and develop new relationships as well. She shares
her experiences with the panel.

===========================

http://www.xyonline.net/downloads/Politics_of_Father_-WAV.doc

The Politics of Father Rights Activists - Do persistent critics of the
Family Court behave in a way which stands up to scrutiny?

By M. C. Dunn

Presented to National Abuse Free Contact Campaign (NAFCC) 2004

In 1995 when the Australian family law was being amended, Family Court
of Australia Chief Justice Nicholson stated "some people and some
politicians with limited knowledge of the issues involved, tend to latch
on to such dysfunctional persons for apparent political gain. This has
the further unfortunate effect of empowering such persons to feel that
their behaviour is not only acceptable but is the subject of sympathy
and approval by politicians and government. It is all too often the
experience of this court that its most persistent critics have behaved
in a way which cannot stand up to public scrutiny, particularly in
relation to issues of violence against women and children". Justice
Nicholson has consistently recognised that many of the Court's harshest
critics were "discontented litigants, sometimes obviously
dysfunctional". Further, he recognised that these same people and the
groups to which they belong, were being granted access to corridors of
powers that resulted in legislation and policy reforms that did not
arrest the violence against women and children (that was being heard in
some family court proceedings). Justice Nicholson continued "Such
persons, who often espouse the rights of fathers, do very little for
their cause. There are legitimate matters that can be advanced on their
behalf and it is equally as important that the court and those within it
do not adopt stereotyped attitudes towards men as well as women."
(Nicholson 1995, p1)

In the context of Justice Nicholson's comments above, this paper
scrutinises the behaviour and language of the two major father's rights
activists organisations, the Shared Parenting Council of Australia
(SPCA), and the Fatherhood Foundation (FF), particularly in relation to
issues of violence against women and children and how these intersect
with the emergent contemporary discourse of "fatherlessness" assertion
and role models for children. Further this paper will provide evidence
that the internet based collectives affiliated to the two key fathers'
rights activists organisations incite virulent hatred of, and harmful
action towards targeted women and their perceived supporters. This paper
examines why these two key Fathers' Rights Activist Organisations (FRAO)
are gaining such open access and encouragement to/from politicians when
much of their agenda expresses high levels of hate and vitriol against
women and why this is seemingly ignored in public discourse to the
detriment of women's and children's safety.

This paper draws on primary materials including: submissions by FRAO and
their membership to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on
Family and Community Affairs 2003 "Inquiry into Child Custody
Arrangements" (from here on referred to as the Inquiry); self-generated
literature; father's rights activists email lists and message board
postings, and media searches of publishes stories and broadcasts.

This paper focuses on the two major FRAO, the SPCA, and the FF because
they have been identified as the two key players in lobbying the
Australian government for legislative change in the area of family law.

Forming the Fathers' Rights Agenda the two major Father's Rights
Activists Organisations

In 1998, after attending a prayer meeting in Canberra's Federal
Parliament, Warwick and Alison Marsh founded the Fatherhood Foundation
(FF). It was set up in response to address what they perceived as an
escalating social crisis caused by "fatherless families" and a high
divorce rate (FF 2002). Contributing to their continued rise, the
Fatherhood Foundation had been joined with and influenced by some
father's rights groups like Fairness in Child Support/Non-Custodial
Party, and the Lone Fathers Association (LFA) (FF 2003, FF 2003i).
Alliances within the men's health network, right-wing conservative
Christian prayer groups, and other men's rights advocates resulted in
the FF now joining the discourse about the need for family law reform
more strategically (FF 2003ii). Claiming men's rights to their children
was the central platform, they agitated specifically for a rebuttable
presumption of shared care because "too many men were suiciding as a
result of "femocentric family law" system" (FF 2003iii).

A rebuttable presumption of shared care is a statutory provision that
means that if parents separate, there would be an immediate legal
presumption that any children of the marriage would live 50 per cent of
the time with each parent. If that were not practical or desirable, then
it would be up to one or both of the parents in court to rebut or
challenge that. In the words of SPCA's Matilda Bawden, "Parents (would)
have the right to 50-50 contact and if a parent wants to contest that,
they would have to argue in the Family Court that it's not in the
child's best interest to have that contact" (Wenhem 2003). The
circumstances to rebut such a presumption were never made clear.

Shared care has different possible meanings in the context of the
renewed family law debate. In 1996 The Family Law Act was amended to
make clear that while a child may reside largely with one parent, the
responsibility for shared care of that child's well-being is ideally
shared equally between both parents. The Act clearly articulates the
principles to which it aspires in Section 60B(2). Those principles mean
the Act provides a framework which is already 100 per cent flexible and
can cater to any permutation of residency arrangements ensuring the best
interests of children and their safety. In the context of the FRAO
shared care means that children will divide their time between both
parents' residence equally (ie 50/50). A clear understanding of what is
meant by 'shared care' is important, as it differs from the term
rebuttable presumption of shared care which has the underpinning
emphasis on preferencing parental rights by children spending equal
amounts of time with each parent. Currently, the amount of time a child
spends in each parent's residence is significant in the discourse of
family law reform, particularly as child support (cs) and welfare
(Centrelink) disbursements are paid and now linked to the time the
children spend at each parent's residence, measured in nights and/or the
primary residence.

In 2002, a number of the more vocal and active of the FRA groups from
each state (other than Tasmania) incorporated to form a national council
with a specific father's rights agenda, but using the more ambiguous
title of Shared Parenting Council of Australia (SPCA) (SPCA 2002i).
Partly this title was developed in order to project a bipartisan
approach to family law and to claim female support, usually second
wives/partners and paternal grandparents (West 2003).

Both the SPCA and FF have a strong cross-membership between both
organisations (FF 2003iv, SPCA 2003). While the FF has a distinctive
right-wing fundamentalist Christian focus with an emphasis to strengthen
father's roles within their families, the SPCA reflects the concerns of
non-resident parents (mostly fathers). Both are concerned with family
law reform. Many fathers' rights activists belong to multiple
organisations to promote shared agendas for men's control of property,
child support, mothers and children through marriage promotion and
attacks on the social supports available to single parent families.

Examples of joint affiliates, but with stronger right-wing fundamental
Christian influence in both organisations are the Festival of Light and
Australian Families Associations. Both of these organisations argue for
preventative measures to stop marriage dissolution through the need to
control the capacity of women to leave, since women are more likely to
take the children, and thereby weakening fathers' bonds with their child
(Muehlenberg 2004). Another joint affiliate of both FRAO is the secular
Lone Fathers' Association (LFA) which represents predominantly
non-resident fathers.

Organisations which focus on family law reform for men have linked to
the SPCA only. An example of an affiliate of SPCA only is the Family Law
Reform Association NSW Inc. This organisation does not construct itself
as a FROA, rather it claims equality for both parents, but states that
fathers are usually the ones disadvantaged by the current family law
system. Other affiliates are Dads Australia Inc, Fathers After Divorce,
Men's Confraternity of WA Inc, Men's Right Agency (national), the
Fatherhood Foundation, Ozydads and the Separated Fathers Network. With
such a focus on fathers'/men's rights the name Shared Parenting Council
of Australia is not congruent with their apparent inclusive title that
conceals a men's rights agenda.

Access to political power

At least two of SPCA's federal executive committee have political
backgrounds, although in different political camps. The SPCA Federal
Director (2002-2003), Geoffrey Greene, is a former deputy director of
Liberal Party in South Australia who now works for the Liberal Party in
Queensland whilst and SPCA Federal Director (2002-2003), and SPCA's
founding President, Matilda Bawden, is a former federal Democrat
candidate. Both have had associations with the Richard Hillman
Foundation Inc (RHF), a South-Australian based FRAO which focuses on the
interests of fathers who claim to have been falsely accused of child
sexual assault. Greene helped formulate the policy agenda for a
rebuttable share care policy through his connections with the RHF. By
2002 he had severed that connection because the RHF had continued to
pursue introducing a private member's bill of a presumption of
rebuttable shared care through the far right-wing One Nation's Senator
Len Harris. Greene saw greater opportunity to use his political
connections within the Liberal Party, since they were in power, to lobby
key friendly politicians and senators active in forming a backbench
committee to influence the Prime Minister (Mottram 2003, Cassidy 2002,
SPCA 2002ii). This strategy assisted men's rights advocates in gaining
access to sympathetic politicians. As reported by SPCA, they
"established a clear pathway through the party room and Cabinet, to have
our representations heard and acted on" (SPCA 2002iii). Similarly, the
FF had networked through the Parliamentary prayer groups attended by the
Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Treasurer, a number of Senators
finding support and an opportunity to reinforce the case for social
reform through legislative change (FF 2002).

Most of the SPCA federal executive committee and state and territory
directors additionally have a history of lobbying and activism.
Co-founder of Men's Rights Agency, Sue Price, and current Federal
director Michael Green facilitated a Parliamentary presentation that
asserted the adversarial system of the Family Law Court had failed (men)
and that a mediation process should be the first option in cases of
family breakdown (SPCA 2002iii p2, Glancy 2002i, West 2003). (Green runs
a mediation service in Sydney for divorcing couples). This presentation
won over many parliamentarians, staffers and some media that were
present.

Both the FF the SPCA most immediate agenda was to lobby government and
representatives to ensure that post separation fathers have equal time
with their children, as opposed to the idea of sharing responsibility
(SPCA 2002 iv p3). The FF helped propel the SPCA's lobbying by backing
calls for an inquiry with their claims about "the facts of
fatherlessness". This list of alarming statistics was used to build the
case for a rebuttable presumption of joint custody (Flood 2003). Aiding
both FRAO agendas is appeal to the many conservative Christian
parliamentarians' pro-marriage beliefs and a few who support a
masculinist discourse (Lyons Forum 1995, Andrews 1999, Crabb 2003). Both
FRAO have succeeded in gaining sympathy for fathers, promoting their
agenda using a rhetoric of equal parenting while at the same time
stiSLURPising "fatherless" families, and denigrating and branding single
mothers as insufficient care-givers whose families cause many social
problems (Jones 2003, The Age 2003, Albrechtsen 2003, Daily Telegraph
7/7/03, Arndt 2002, Arndt 2003).

The branding of single mothers resonated in the conservative Australian
Prime Minister, John Howard's announcement of a major inquiry conducted
by House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community
Affairs into the arrangements of families post separation. The
announcement mooting the possibility of a "rebuttable presumption of
shared care", as well as including inquiring into child support matters
(Cordeaux 2003, Jones 2003i). The announcement speech on June 24 2003 is
the first recorded mention by an Australian Prime Minister of the
concept of a rebuttable presumption of shared care. Howard expressed his
"worry" about growing "fatherlessness" and "boys' needing male role
models" as one of the impetuses for calling the Inquiry. This same
promulgation of "fatherlessness" and boys' needing male role models,
specifically their biological father was also the same theme that SPCA
and FF used in their various presentations, forums and lobbying to push
changes in the area of family law.

When Howard called this Inquiry he reverted to using the outdated term
of "custody" which was replaced by residency in 1996 family law reforms
to emphasise both parties have parental responsibility
post-divorce/separation ie: shared care (Parkinson 2003). This reform
was to make clear that while a child may reside largely with one parent,
the responsibility or "custody" of that child's well-being is ideally
shared equally between both parents. The term custody is still used
extensively by FRAO.

Disinformation and stiSLURPisation

Since 1995 conservative politicians and men's rights activists have
advocated consistently for a need for reassertion of Christian values,
and promoted the traditional family as the basis for a stable society
(Lyons Forum 1995, Andrews 1999, Millet 2002). The same covert language
of mother-blaming, specifically single mother families, and an
increasing pressure to promote marriage was part of the language and
agenda by the FF on February 10, 2003 at their Fathering Forum held at
Parliament House (Muehlenberg 2002, FF 2003ii). This was done
specifically in the context of pressing the need for family law reform.
The fatherlessness issue was further formalised on 26 June 2003, with
the launch of a policy document, "The 12 Point Plan", at the National
Strategic Conference on Fatherhood, at Parliament House Canberra, well
attended by politicians, their staffers, and media -just one month prior
to the announcement by Howard.

The significance of the National Fathering Forum was the disinformation
about "fatherlessness" disseminated as "fact" which was further repeated
by those politicians who attended, and by media, gaining a largely
uncritical foothold. This political and media take-up strengthened
political support for fathers' rights groups and in particular helped
persuade Howard to hold the Inquiry into family law (Albrechtsen 2003,
Cadman 2003, Barnett 2003, Jones 2003, Arndt 2003i, Mottram 2003, Wroe
2003). These public statements and materials prepared by Muehlenberg and
other FRAO are characterised by the confusion of correlation and
causation, the reduction of multiple social variables to bivariate
associations, the highly selective use of research evidence, neglect of
contradictory or competing evidence, and treatment of small differences
as if they were gross and absolute (Coltrane 1997, p8 in Flood 2003).
The fatherless claims are bogus statistics, with no factual basis yet
became a powerful weapon in asserting their fathers' rights political
agendas (Flood 2003).

To give one example, Michael Flood researched the claim that 'Boys from
a fatherless home are 14 times more likely to commit rape' that was a
widely reported part of the '12 Point Plan' released by the National
Fatherhood Forum in June 2003. Flood found it is one of the claims
commonly made by those who argue the destructive effects of father
absence on families and society. Yet this statistic is an invention.
Although it has no basis in fact, it is regularly repeated even
affecting social policy formulation (Flood 2003, The Age 2003, Labi
2003, Cadman 2003, SA Hansard (Evans) 2003, Burke 2004).

Fatherlessness – a social crisis?

Some politicians were so convinced about a fatherless "social crisis" as
to repeat the disinformation of these FRAO on their own websites, and in
speeches in Parliament (Cadman 2003, Barnett 2003, Senate Hansard 2003).
This information was the stimulus for other politicians actively
lobbying on the need for family-friendly (father) policies, and other
inquiries into the status of fatherhood (FF Issue No. 57- 29th
September, 2003, Cadman 2003, SA Hansard Evan AL 23/9/03, Burke 2004).
Accordingly, some politicians continue to use the fatherless assertions
as part of their wider conservative reassertion of boys' and men's
rights that covers such issues as boys' under-achievement at schools,
boys (not children's) role models, along with increased violence, men's
suicide and other arguments that FRAO support, (Bouchard et al 2003,
Nelson 2002, Oakes 2004, Stepfamily Zone 2003).

The political strategy of building an alarmist discourse about the
problem "fatherlessness" aims to stem the perceived permissiveness of
marriage breakdown by stiSLURPising single mother families as
"fatherless" while at the same time promoting marriage by comparing
social outcomes between the traditional families and single mother
families (Mead 1999). A key contributor to the FF's The 12 Point Plan,
Meuhlenbeg claims that "85 per cent of sole parent families are
fatherless families" (Fatherhood Foundation 2003, Appendix), when in
fact 83% of sole parent families in Australia are headed by a woman (ABS
2003). Fatherless homes/families as defined by the National Library of
Australia refers to single mother families (NLA 2000). Muehlenberg's
insults discount single mother capabilities, ignores fathers who have
regular residency but not primary residency, ignores those fathers who
have no contact orders due to a past history of violence, and overlooks
those fathers who abrogated contact with their children, or those
widowed. Consistent with the remainder of The 12 Point Plan, Meuhlenberg
argues in the context of the absent parent, that a "growing body of
evidence... to ensure the healthy development of children is the setting
of the biological two-parent family. By a number of indicators, children
from intact, stable two-parent will do much better than children from
broken homes of single-parent families" (Muehlenberg 2002).

Blaming single mother families for poor social outcomes of children, in
part based on data from other countries is again simplistic and but
avoids intersecting issues like poverty, violence, health, housing,
lower economic status of women, and resilience (Flood 2003). This
political strategy of creating a social panic about fatherlessness
reinforced by similar statements of "worry" made by the Prime Minister,
which was echoed by politicians and media and that coalesce to undermine
the image of single mother family capabilities, negatively influencing
the socially mediated attitudes that may be personally internalised
(Perry and Whiteside 2002).

In all this "fatherless assertion" there is little acknowledgment by
FRAO or politicians that some 'male role models' (or some female) may
not be useful for boys and girls, particularly in those highly
dysfunctional families where entrenched conflict, domestic violence,
serious mental illness or child abuse occurs. In their pursuit of
father-centric and pro-marriage agenda FRAO have ignored that it is
important for children to have effective, safe and healthy parenting,
which most women are quite capable of, particularly if they have
adequate support and resourcing (Flood 2003). Where there are negative
outcomes among children who grow up without their biological fathers,
these are explained in part by selection effects – by systematic
differences between the people who divorce or never marry and those who
marry once and stay married. Again these differences show up as high
parental conflict, substance abuse, violence, mental illness and other
forms of anti-social behaviour which are associated with divorce and
with poor outcomes in children, not because the parent is a single
mother (Rodgers et al 2003 p6, Flood 2003).

The FF, the SPCA and many FRAO involved in lobbying for family law
reform have consistently sought to link suicide rates of separated men
to blocked contact with their children and/or family "disintergration"
(FF2003vi). The charge that either it is the mother who blocks contact
or moves too far away or to the court who decide residency (and
no-contact) arrangements (King 2003, Daily Telegraph 2003, Rhoades
2002). Dads In Distress (DiD) claims "up to 5 men suicide each week",
while the SPCA claims up to "3 fathers suicide every day" as a result of
family separation" (and being unable to father daily) (SPCA 2003i p17,
Miller 2003). Miller who convenes DiD arrives at his weekly figure by
assuming all 1817 male suicides in Australia in 2002 are due to
separation distress, a totally bogus invention. This casual link and
statistical issue was investigated by the Inquiry, and the Committee's
report stated "there are no reliable statistics on why men commit
suicide. The committee has made considerable effort to obtain this
information but it is not available." (HRSCFCS Parliamentary Inquiry
Report 2003). The FRAO suicide assertion puts the argument that these
children of separated parents grow up fatherless but if a rebuttable
presumption of shared care is not implemented there will be an epidemic
of suicides (Miller 2004, SPCA 2003 submission p 17). This suicide
assertion seeks to make children a cure and hold women responsible for
deeply depressed mentally unstable men. Such an assertion does not
advocate for better mental health accessibility and affordability for
men, some of whom do experience distress in the separation process
(Robinson and Rodgers 2004). Further, it presents an unacceptable risk
of women and children's safety as evidenced by the distressing cases
where fathers have murdered their children, occasionally the ex-wife (or
other family members), and then suicided – most often in the context of
their ex-wife complying with contact arrangements. Post-fatality the
connection is made that many of these men had past histories of domestic
violence (Passmore 2004, Jackman 2003, Flood 2003, Rathus, Rendell and
Lynch 2001, Astor 1994).

Therefore, the implications of fatherlessness claims and father suicide
assertions in the context of arguing for the rebuttable presumption of
shared care has its largest impact on those most vulnerable families,
women and children who experience violence and abuse is at the hands of
their partner/father.

Spreading the word

Much of the propaganda of the SPCA's and the FF and their supporters in
the media and in parliament is published and broadcast, often without a
counterbalancing voices from women's organisations or groups, or even
the views of those with family law or with social policy expertise (King
2003).

FRAO longed for an unfettered forum to air their views and sought a ways
to gain greater public support. This resulted in the development in 2001
of "Dads On the Air" (DOA), a weekly broadcast community radio 2GL
(outer Sydney, NSW,). Although, more significantly, for those outside
the broadcast area, DOA provides web-casts and internet-based message
boards aimed specifically at fathers who have separated, assuming that
they are unhappy with how they, as men and fathers, are treated by the
courts, and/or child support agency and/or other family law
infrastructure. The SPCA's website states that "the Shared Parenting
Council of Australia is pleased to support the Dads on the Air (DOA)
program on 2GLF every Monday. To hear this program as an Audio Webcast
click the link below. Dads on the Air Webcast" (SPCA 2003ii). The reason
behind such an endorsement of DOA is that often SPCA leadership are
regularly guests of the program. FF's President Warwick Marsh has also
been a guest of DOA programs.

Additionally, since their formation both the FF and SPCA have sought to
fund "an extensive publicity and advertising campaign designed to inform
and educate the Australian public" (SPCA 2002iv p3, FF 2002). Both these
groups have media strategies aimed at gaining greater public support for
their respective and collective agendas (FF 2003i, SPCA 2002i). To this
end, they are also aided by media commentators like Bettina Arndt who
have actively lobbied on behalf of, and aided FRAO by giving them access
to decision makers and giving them a forum to air their views and to
influence public opinion (FF 2003v FF 2003 vii). Ms Arndt's influence
extends beyond her media commentator role, with her public speaking and
her appointments to many consultative roles by the Coalition government
in advisory groups such as the Family Pathways Advisory Group,
Ministers' Advisory group on child care and child development
(Attorney-Generals Department 2000,The Age 2003).

With greater access to technology many individuals are able to link with
each other, small vocal groups, or with larger national organisations
like the SPCA utilising the internet and airwaves. Also, they are able
to link nationally and internationally so there is an extensive
internet-based network of e-list discussion groups and websites on which
to further strategise in response to their grievances about family law
issues and have an internet presence. Some members are on multiple
lists, creating repetition with cross-postings with information
appearing on several sites and lists (some 28 identified national lists
associated with SPCA alone, many more international e-list
affiliations). All FRAO sites and e-lists are anti-feminist.

Webcasts and websites like Dads on the Air (DOAw), e-lists like Ozydads
and the shared parenting yahoo list that hosts message boards and forums
plays a considerable role in supplying space and information, sometimes
launching vitriolic attacks that quickly escalate into hate speech
and/or incite hatred on/about individual and collective women,
feminists, judiciary, government agencies and organisations that
intersect with family law and/or their political agenda. For example
after a DOA broadcasts, it is common to find anonymous individuals
posting their grievances on message boards, including some overseas FRA
posts. Easy access to email facilitates a quick and effective way of
contacting opponents, fellow supporters, media and politicians and is
part of an essential FRAO tool kit.

Some public sites keep the language respectful, but closed lists, and/or
anonymous boards display language and rhetoric that are disturbing. Some
posts involve the expression of hate, violence, threats and/or
unrestrained discourse against anyone who the FRAO feels opposes their
views or questions their rights. This phenomenon is not isolated to the
Australian context as a Canadian study by Bouchard, Boily and Proulz
found. In the context of family law where domestic violence and child
abuse cases feature more prominently, particularly in the contested
cases, the hate speech and the incitement of more "militant" action is
an extension of the familial intimidation and violence into the public
and political sectors.

As part of their hate rhetoric FRAO continue to incite one another to
keep their ex-partner in litigation. For example, after the initial
report of the Inquiry, many postings on various FRAO-networks incited
one another to "drag their ex-partners back into the legal system to
"clog it up" and "show the bitch and the [politicians/judiciary]
bastards we want their child for equal time" [Ozydads e-list, posted
29/12/03]. It is impossible to assess whether these men then carry
through with their threats.

Further the vitriolic language of FRAO members single out
representatives of specific organisations who either represent family
law system or who comment on issues associated with family law. For
example Chief Justice Nicholson, HREOC Sex Discrimination Commissioner
Pru Goward, even academics like men's interest researcher Michael Flood
are described as "the enemy", "maggots", labelled misandrists and often
slandered using derogatory terms, sometimes with homophobic labels.
Occasionally post describe inflicting murderous desires on these
individuals, particularly the Chief Justice and his colleagues ("If I
could ask for my "Family Law Court Judge" (FLCJ) to be hanged"). An
example of the more extreme of emails was posted on a list moderated by
a former State director of the SPCA that stated:

Posted 19/03/2004 Ozydads network

">What about Magistrates like Lawrence of Rockingham WA who not only
accepted false DVO's but re-established them for THREE MORE YEARS!!

>>I want to kill that cunt and god help him if I find his address"


Sometimes the FRAO e-lists and sites accuse the Courts of being like
feminists who they see as dictators ("feminazis" or "feminazi
puppeteers") and who are accused of great crimes ("crimes against
humanity", "legal child abductors"). Other hate rhetoric is aimed at
professionals generally, especially lawyers, social workers and even
police ("Lawyer-solicitor-barrister-judge scum mafia are riding on
feminazi brainwashing ordinary taxpayers into believing they are neither
well-paid thieves nor child abusers").

More hate speech and intimidation is reserved for single-mother and sole
parents' spokeswomen who are vilified, slandered, defamed and hated with
ferocity ("face of feminazi evil", "fucking fat slag blood-sucking
liar"). When the media allow these women to have a counter voice the
hate-speech is sometimes escalated into threats and/or outright
intimidation as posts on DOA escalated until FRAO, Fathers 4 Justice's
Australian Coordinator, Trevor Arthurson (who appeared in the same 60
Minutes program) sought to incite harm against Sole Parents' Union
President, Kathleen Swinbourne with a false allegation that stated "WE
SHOULD REPORT HER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES [CHILD
PROTECTION AGENCY] FOR THE WAY SHE TREATED HER SON" (DOA 30/5/04).

FRAO even target hate mail towards politicians, some whom have worked
hard to support and understand their agenda. After the handing down of
the report of the inquiry titled, "Every Picture Tells a Story"
politicians reported receiving "hate mail threats of violence and
significant abuse" (Hull 2004). Mrs Hull, as woman-chair of the Inquiry,
was targeted and labelled "treacherous" and politicians generally were
described as "F****G politicians are LYING SCUM" for not recommending
50/50 care. Fuelling such disgruntlement following the report's release,
DOA message boards had more than 460 posts (175 pages) of posts on one
message board on DOA site alone, with some posts inciting a more
"militant" approach in lobbying and demonstrating their opposition to
what they see as a "feminised law system created by feminists". Fathers
4 Justice (F4J) in Australia was started in April 2004 as anger-fuelled
men seeking to copy the more successful militant and intimidatory
actions of their UK brethren. Other FRAO messages boards contained
similar postings. Since April F4J have attempted to hold several
intimidating demonstrations outside Family Courts where "decontamination
suits" were worn. The rationale behind F4J suits and super-hero costumes
is "looks good in media and protesters can remain anonymous" (Ozydads
2004).

Many of these men do not see their language and actions as intimidating
and violent in nature in and of itself. For example a women "Kym"
challenged the fathers' rights supporters about the hate speech on DOA
message board posted on 04/01/2004 and the replies attacked her
personally and one rejected her claims while suggesting such hate-speech
was accurately targeted against "feminazi's are evil bitches", that
"poofter pollies..might be voted out".

Besides targeting individuals, organisations, opponents and professions,
FROA hate discourse is almost exclusively focused on the same issues
that the representative organisations push politically and in the media,
(ie: child support, being denied contact with children, false
allegations of child abuse and/or domestic violence, PAS, that women are
equally violent, biased family court).

Some dedicated groups (for example: //www.StopPAS.info //www.MaleVictim.net
, //www.SelfRep.net , //www.FamilyRules.net) have emerged on particular
issues such as Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), which has been
rejected by reputable medical and legal experts an invented condition.
Yet postings quickly accuse the ex-partner of parental alienation
syndrome (PAS) labelling them "PAS-child alienators". This dedicated
internet-based group assists fathers and their children who other FRA
diagnose as being PAS victims, with peer-support and advice in how to
incorporate such "evidence" into their court proceedings. PAS is growing
in popularity amongst members of the father's rights movement.
Initially, this syndrome was used by men who have allegations or have
been charged with child abuse and/or domestic violence but now it is
used by men who resent what they see as their ex-partner's
"gate-keeping" the child. Mostly it's fathers and/or their second wife
who claim that the mother of their child is trying to alienate the
father-child relationship as a means of denying contact and/or getting
an upper hand in court. In all their rhetoric there is no recognition in
any of the discussion of resolving entrenched conflict, or of the
reality of incest and domestic violence.

Other vocal internet-based groups with issues are "Self-Represented
Litigants", "male victims of domestic violence"," child abduction",
"disenfranchised", and "fathers against child support". For example FRAO
combine their disgruntlement about child support and hatred rhetoric
about the Child Support Agency (CSA). They believe that this agency and
its staff are directly responsible for their misery claiming
impoverishment resulting from a harsh formula (Stapleton 2000). FROA
strategise and lobby to make child support payments "fairer" for payers
(mostly fathers), on how to achieve a 50/50 shared care partly to
abolish any child support assessment (Flanagan 2003). The FRAO logic is
that if each parent shares the care including financial responsibility
equally there will be no need for a child support agency intervention.
Sometimes posts contain accusations that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
is "hounding them to death", or how to exploit loop-holes or win a
change of assessment to reduce child support obligations. Sometime
though, FRA incite one another to email the child support agency, or
participate in campaigns design to show their contempt for this agency.
This ties in with their unsubstantiated opinion that all men are
suffering in the family law system, and that this is causing 'an
epidemic of male suicides, especially after the issuing of child support
obligation/debt notices' (Stapleton, 2003, SPCA 2003).

At other times their misogynist views encourage disparaging posts of
their ex-partner, sometimes revealing highly sensitive identifying
reference numbers and/or personal information about themselves and their
ex-partner on publicly accessible e-lists, clearly breaching privacy
laws. For example a letter to the Child Support Agency in Melbourne was
posted to a DOA forum containing the case reference number, and the full
names of all parties and information about his case and obligations. The
father blames the mothers for his serial fatherhood and consequent child
support obligations.

Commonly postings about the CSA are referring to it as the C$A or the
"Collection and Suicide Agency". For example – this email is an excerpt
of a campaign's instructions to send old dirty shirts to the Prime
Minister, and failing acceptance of the shirts by the PM's office to
ensure the return address is each father's CSA case manager, posted to
world lists on 13/1/04:

"Put the name and address of your C$A case manager as the sender on the
post pack (– THIS IS IMPORTANT, IF THE PM REFUSES DELIVERY YOU DON'T
WANT YOUR SHIRT RETURNED TO YOU, THIS WILL GET YOUR SHIRT SENT TO YOUR
CASE MANAGER) I am a non-custodial parent. I know that the government
and Child Support Agency won't be happy until they have the shirt off my
back. Well here it is! I hope you're satisfied!"

Further, fathers' rights activists set up websites or post their stories
about being "driven to welfare dependency", or "fleeing overseas" "in
exile" because of child support obligations (Desbois 2004). Conversely
these same individuals while claiming to love and care about their
child/ren do not appear to be willing to concede that child support keep
will their child out of poverty, and that their lack of contact with
their child/ren is self-imposed. This is one among many inconsistent
opinions and beliefs which characterises the FRA agenda. For example
this posting to Ozydads network demonstrates:

"re: Phone calls, conferencing and pity
Mark wrote:

>>"Its all bullshit.FUCK the legal system, go out and DO what you

must.....whatever the cost.enough is enough.The REAL men are in jail
\snip\

..well, Mark, i am a 'real' man and i chose to be out of jail by hiding
overseas. to make a difference i joined F4J to fight. Lionel is a member
of f4j-international. please join him and others in WA to decontaminate
your FCs.
Roger
http://www.pafe.human-rights.org/index.htm

In all the FRAO hate commentary that targets opponents, organisations,
and issues most of their propaganda affects women generally. The SPCA's
woman president, Matilda Bawden, expressed it like this: "The Family
Court is biased against men; self-serving feminists dominate the family
law policy agenda in Australia and the Family Court itself; women
habitually "lie and cheat in court" (Wenham 2003). This again feeds into
a collective ideology that mothers (women) lie and cheat and are likely
to make false allegations. This ideology is transparent in SPCA views
and rhetoric on violence against women and child abuse, almost
exclusively framed in the context of false allegations.

Adding to the assertion that women lie and cheat the SPCA seeks to
negate women's experiences of violence by arguing gender symmetry (ie:
that men and women are equally aggressive towards each other and
therefore domestic violence is a gender-neutral issue) (SPCA, 2003,
Men's Rights Agency, 2003). In their submission to the Inquiry the SPCA
offers no discussion on how to engage perpetrators to end their
violence, or how to protect victims other than through mandatory
mediation and counselling. Given that separation is a high risk period
for women and their children's safety, enforced mediation has been shown
to expose women to being re-abused (Astor 1994, Rathus et al 2000).
Further FRAO have organised to attack campaigns that seek to end
violence against women including writing to politicians, and the
Advertising Standards Board to complain about the "Australia says No to
violence" domestic violence campaign (Ozydads 15/6/04, 20/6/04).

Similarly FROA child protection discourse is generally in the context of
biological fathers are the best protectors of their children, that most
allegations are false. Although the SPCA wrote in support for speedy
expedited investigations where child abuse is "established" allowing the
Family Court to rule on parenting plans [presumably no contact] (SPCA,
2003). Yet FRAO are so vehement in their assertion that women and
children falsely accuse child abuse that even child protection
campaigners come under attack. SPCA Director Edward Dabrowski, on
29/6/04 emailed Senate candidate and child protection campaigner Hetty
Johnson, "I have read you mission statement for an automatic presumption
of no contact for fathers who are victims of false abuse accusations and
mother's shallow objections. Even worse is that you would deny natural
justice on the basis of unproven allegations. Do you really think that
people will vote for a despot to enter Parliament and remove their
natural rights and relationship with their children? You have been found
out, uncovered, exposed". Again the assumption is that women lie and
coach children to falsely accuse fathers, as Ms Johnson's campaign
mirrors the New Zealand Bristol Inquiry recommendation of no contact
while allegations are thoroughly investigated. A small disruption that
preferences child safety over parental rights.

Where FRAO do recognise child abuse they are more likely to selectively
cite Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) child abuse data
that records the family structure the child is living in, not the
relationship of the perpetrator to the child (ie the single mother
family). This selectivity fits with FROA misogyny that blames the mother
to reinforce their opinion that biological fathers are the best
protectors and single mothers are bad for children, especially if they
have re-partnered. Their rhetoric discounts the urgent need for better
child protection systems and safe parenting, instead seeking to promote
fathers over mothers.

FROA also try to promote fathers to the detriment and denigration of
mothers by posting global news items of child abuse perpetrated by
mothers, or mother's new partner to their e-lists or boards as a way of
validating this belief (Ozydads 2002-2004, Shared Parenting Forum
2003-2004). News-reports are problematic as they approach complex social
issues with simplistic conclusions, and often not all the full facts are
presented at the time the story goes to print/air. Additionally, news
agencies are selective in the reporting of news. So while FRAO are vocal
about the need for biological father's child protection, they are not
pushing for more child-friendly investigation processes and
prosecutions. Nor do their policies take account that some child abuse
victims are pre-verbal, or lack language skills to articulate the crime.
Unless a forensic approach is taken to collecting evidence, and/or there
is greater cooperation between Federal and State agencies,
substantiation of abuse enough for conviction child protection in the
family law system continues to be problematic (Brown et al 2001).

The FROA discourse on domestic violence and child abuse depends on
denying and negating victims' experiences. FRAO present flawed,
ill-conceived and invalid rationalisation as social policy solutions
particularly when it comes to protecting victims of abuse and violence
in familial circumstance. So entrenched is FRAO assertion of false
allegation combined with selectivity about data that many FRAO ignore
cases of child fatalities, and those women murdered by violent
ex-partners even though these mothers do comply with contact-orders even
when their safety is at risk [(for example: Bartley case 2002 (mother
shot dead at handover), Kongon-Poulson case 2003 (2 infants and their
grandfather killed, Dalton case 2004 (2 infants smothered by suicide
father prior to handover)]. Several studies and pilot programs like
Magellan have shown FRAO assertions to have no substance and that
without proper Federal-State cooperative funding and investigations
women and children's safety will continue to be at risk (Brown et al
1998, 2001).

Hate propaganda, bogus and statistical inventions overlooked.
Given there is much evidence of hate propaganda, bogus statistics and
dodgy research underpinning FROA policy, it is alarming that these
groups are continuing to influence much of the debate and public
discourse about family law reforms and be so accepted by politicians.

The hate literature and extremism is generally being ignored on both
sides of politics. Support for FRAO has come from both houses of
Parliament; Government Ministers and from a number of ALP, Independent
and minor parties members (FF 2003v). This can be explained in part by
constituency case load where fathers are more likely to complain.
Further explanation may be found among the substantial divorce rate of
politicians (majority male) so father discontentment with the family law
system and on-going child support resonates with some of the personal
life experiences of those politicians who are non-resident payers, or
second-wives.

Further explanation of FROA rhetoric may be found in the personal
interpretation of the suicide of Greg Wilton (Federal ALP member for
Isaacs). There were many politicians on both sides of the House who were
affected deeply by the events and his death. Liberal South Australian
Senator Jeannie Ferris, who has helped SPCA along with NSW Backbencher
Ken Ticehurst and Alan Cadman who also assisted FF, have spoken of being
deeply affected by Mr Wilton's suicide, which came two weeks after his
attempted murder-suicide that was thwarted by police. Media reports
simplistically blamed his death on marriage dissolution, child support
and/or lack of contact but neglected to acknowledge his depression
(mental illness) may have contributed to the separation/marriage
dissolution in the first place (Rodgers 2004). Many politicians also
fail to recognise men's lack of access and poor funding of mental health
support has meant that many men's problems compounded to breaking point
and mental illness is highly featured in divorce cases. There is an
urgent need to de-stiSLURPise mental illness, and encourage those
suffering depression and other mental disorders to seek out and access
help. The safety needs of children are not best met by being cared for
by a suicidal parent.

In reviewing some hundred plus media stories, many media commentators
were found to have acted as customary spokespersons for the masculinist
discourse (Bouchard et al 2003, Arndt 1999, Arndt 2002, Arndt 2003,
Stapleton 2003, Jackman 2003, King 2003). While there are some attempts
to canvass alternative opinions, largely the debate of a rebuttable
presumption of shared care was reported from the "fathers losing out"
perspective, often with an impassioned sense of grief (Overton 2004,
Daly 2004, Horin 2003) and often sidelining domestic violence issues
with incest/child abuse taboo. In taking a sensationalist approach
encouraging "gender wars" the media gains improved ratings and sales but
neglects social obligations. Further with the media reluctant to engage
constructively on social relationships, they influence and prejudice the
socially mediated attitudes and make invisible constructive discourse on
building safe familial victims of violence.

It seems politicians and media have ignored men continue to be the
dominant social group. The FRAO portrayal of fathers as an underclass
who suffers discrimination denies the gendered social inequalities
between men and women. It masks the gendered social, political and
economic divisions of power where women still run second to men
(Bouchard et al 2003).

Of further concern is that such false claims, hate language and violence
supportive behaviour by FRAO are being overlooked by many politicians,
bureaucrats and administrators in the context of the family law, policy
making and this is also resulting in judicial pressure. While
inflammatory criticism about alleged "collusion and corruption in the
family law" continue unabated and while the leaders of FRAO do not
engage their members to desist from posting such hate mail Justice
Nicholson's words caution all to scrutinise family law lobbying of FRAO.
Such is the discourse of hatred and false claims of gender symmetry when
it comes to sexual abuse and violence against women by FRAO that
politicians have interfered in education campaigns that seek to lower or
end violence in intimate relationships (Wallace 16/12/03, Harvey
17/12/03). This political intervention, together with the denial of
hatred and threats against women generally, and FRAO opponents signals
the presence of a backlash. This backlash constitutes an impediment to
engaging men to recognise and take responsibility for their behaviour
and language to ensure safety from violence for all.

So the question remains for politicians to answer why are FRAO gaining
such influence and open access, when there is clear evidence of hatred
and targeting of women and those involved in family law? There is a real
need for politicians and media to assert women's rights to expression
and political power and to live without threats fear and hatred. The
political acceptance and promotion of the claims of fatherlessness
insults those non-resident fathers who have positive influence and
positive relationship with their child/ren. Also it undermines adoptive,
step and blended families and continues to further stiSLURPise single
mother households. None of this judgement and stiSLURPisation of selected
families is in children's best interests.

Recommendations

In the context of the continued and growing use of the internet by FRAO
to develop misogynist sites inciting hatred, and the number of growing
discussion groups used to promote anti-mother propaganda, it is
suggested that closer monitoring of these groups be undertaken by either
a hate watch organisation, Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS)
or by HREOC to focus on gender social relations (Bouchard et al 2003).
Such monitoring should be used to provide warnings to government
agencies such as the Child Support Agency and the Family Court, also
politicians, and non government organisations which are the target of
hate actions. Authors of hate mail and incitements to violence should be
investigated and prosecuted for promoting violence. Persistent offenders
should be identified on a national security register.

The data from men's hate speech could be collated and used to inform
social policy development and women's status. Further that a family law
media awareness network should be established for those who intercept
with the family law system to provide accurate information and to
counter misinformation and provided informed information about family
law and gender social relations. For example FRAO claims that fathers
are subject to bias in family law is a provably false claim that is
wrongly used to recruit men to the FRAO agenda and to discourage them
from reaching positive workable post-separation parenting arrangements
solely in order to support the FRAO case. Users of the family law system
should not have to interpret it from a fathers' rights framework but one
from the perspective of child safety and best interests.

Also it is proposed that the "Window on Women" site be the central
information, reference and factual data site for journalists and
academics and others to access on the status of women in various areas
such as family law. Further that publication of gendered data must
always be supported by analyses that provided the context, since without
it the data only fuels the masculinist discourses. This site and social
responsibility should be broadly publicised. Also the establishment of a
strategy to develop and support the dissemination by women's groups of
positive egalitarian messages to balance masculinist discourse and FRA
propaganda.

References

Nicholson A. Chief Justice, 1995 Enhancing Access to Justice, Family
Court of Australia Second National Conference Papers, 2-23 September,
Family Court of Australia. P1.

Fatherhood Foundation 2002 About Us -History,
http://www.fathersonline.org/about/index.html

Fatherhood Foundation 2002i Fatherhood Foundation Newsletter Issue Issue
No.9-28 October, 2002.

Fatherhood Foundation 2003, The 12 Point Plan

Fatherhood Foundation 2003i Fatherhood Foundation Newsletter Issue Issue
No. 44-30th June, 2003

Fatherhood Foundation 2003ii Fatherhood Foundation Newsletter Issue No.
24-10th February, 2003.

Fatherhood Foundation 2003iii Fatherhood Foundation Newsletter Issue No
43-23 June, 2003.

Fatherhood Foundation 2003iv National Fathering Forum Delegates List
August 15, 2003.

Fatherhood Foundation 2003v Fatherhood Foundation Newsletter Issue No.
50-11 August, 2003

Fatherhood Foundation 2003vi Fatherhood Foundation Newsletter Issue No.
36-5th May, 2003

Fatherhood Foundation 2003vii Fatherhood Foundation Newsletter Issue No.
57- 29th September, 2003

Wenham Margaret 2003i 50-50 Vision 11/07/03 Courier Mail, Brisbane 2003.

Shared Parenting Council of Australia 2002i SPCA Media Release 22
October 2002

Shared Parenting Council of Australia 2002ii SPCA Media Release November
18, 2002.

Shared Parenting Council of Australia 2002iii SPCA News Update Vol 1
Issue 2, 30 November 2002

Shared Parenting Council of Australia 2002iv SPCA News Update Vol 1
Issue 1, 2002. 28 October 2002 p3.

Shared Parenting Council of Australia 2003 Affiliate Organisations
http://www.spca.org.au/
accessed 1/6/04

Shared Parenting Council of Australia 2003i Submission to the House of
Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs
Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangements in the event of Family
Separation p17

Shared Parenting Council of Australia 2003ii //www.spca.org.au home page
accessed 1/6/04

West William, 2003, New moves to reduce divorce rate. Kairos Catholic
Journal Vol 14 No 10 15 June 2003. Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne.

Muehlenberg Bill, 2004 Why Families Are In Strife. Family World News
June 2004. article 1, Australian Christian Network.
http://www.pastornet.net.au/fwn/2004/jun/art11.html

Mottram Murray, 2003, Why Howard suddenly started to talk about custody
battles 21 June 2003 The Age.

Cassidy Frank 2002, Back-Bench Committee To Press For Family Law Changes
17/11/02 Canberra Times

Glancy Kevin, 2002i Spoils of Post Marriage Warfare, 14 November 2002
Men's Rights Agency
http://www.mensrights.com.au/page21h.htm (accessed 1/6/04),
Glancy Kevin, 2002ii, in Fatherhood Foundation Newsletter Issue No.
11-11th Nov, 2002

Flood Michael 2003 Fatherhood and Fatherlessness. The Australia
Institute, Discussion Paper No. 59, November, pp. 21-23.

The Lyons Forum, 1995. Empowering Australian Families, Parliament House
Canberra.

Andrews Kevin 1999, Developing a National Family Policy, Family Matters
No 54 Spring 1999, Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Crabb Annabel 2003, Right Forms Lobby Group. 22/9/03 The Age Melbourne.
Fairfax Press.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/21/1064082866149.html

Jones Alan 2003. Fatherlessness, 11 Decembe