Domestic Violence Against Men: Women More Likely To Be ‘Intimate Terrorists’ With Controlling Behavior In Relationships

Upset woman about to slap her partner the living room

Relationships can be an emotional rollercoaster. Throughout the ride, men and women can be everything from loving and nurturing, to sometimes verbally and even physically abusive during fights. While aggression in heterosexual relationships is believed to stem from men, a recent study presented on June 25 at a symposium on intimate partner violence (IPV) at the British Psychological Society’s Division of Forensic Psychology annual conference in Glasgow, found women are more likely to be “intimate terrorists,” or physically aggressive to their partners than men.

Michael P. Johnson, an American sociologist coined the term “intimate terrorism,” or batterers or abusers, in the 1990s to define an extreme form of controlling relationship behavior involving threats, intimidation, and violence. Men were almost always responsible for these heinous acts. This belief is further supported by statistics highlighting nearly three in 10 women (29 percent), and one in 10 men (10 percent) in the U.S. have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by a partner, affecting some form of their functioning, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

To observe the dynamic and prevalence of intimate partner violence of men and women in heterosexual relationships, Dr. Elizabeth Bates from the University of Cumbria and colleagues from the University of Central Lancashire, conducted a survey collecting data from a large cohort of students. More than 1,000 students — 706 women and 398 men with an average age of 24 — responded to the questionnaires. The students were asked about their physical aggression and controlling behavior to partners, and to same-sex others, including friends.

The findings revealed just as many women as men could also be classed as abusive, coupled with controlling behavior with serious levels of threats, intimidation, and physical violence. Women were more likely to verbally and physically aggressive to their partners than men. “This study found that women demonstrated a desire to control their partners and were more likely to use physical aggression than men. “It wasn’t just pushing and shoving,” said Bates,Medical Xpress reported. Some of the survey respondents circled boxes for things like beating up, kicking, and even threatening to use a weapon.

However, when it came to terms of high levels of control and aggression, there was no difference between men and women. There was a higher prevalence of controlling behavior seen in women than men, which was found to significantly predict physical aggression in both sexes. In other words, the more controlling behavior a woman displayed, the more likely she would an “intimate terrorist,” or physically aggressive to her partner.

“This was an interesting finding. Previous studies have sought to explain male violence towards women as rising from patriarchal values, which motivate men to seek to control women’s behavior, using violence if necessary,” Bates said. This suggests IPV may not be motivated by patriarchal values, and should be further studied with other forms of aggression. The stereotypical popular view, although still dominant, is being challenged by research over the last ten to 15 years, shedding light on male domestic violence.

Mark Brooks, chair of the ManKind Initiative in the U.K., which offers support for male victims of domestic violence, believes Bates’ study is “game changing.” “At the charity we’re not surprised at the findings, because of the type of calls we get to our helpline every day,” Brooks told The Telegraph. “What concerns us still is the lack of awareness and services available to support those men suffering in this way.”

It is no surprise that the media and government in the U.S. and throughout other parts of the world, people focus most attention on the female victims of domestic violence and, consequently, men are the overlooked victims of domestic violence. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, men and boys are less likely to report the violence and seek services due to several challenges such as the stigma of being a male victim. Sixteen percent of adult men who report being raped or physically assaulted are victims of a current or former spouse, cohabitating partner, boyfriend/girlfriend, or date.

Source: Bates E et al. Women more likely to be aggressive than men in relationships. British Psychological Society’s Division of Forensic Psychology annual conference in Glasgow.

Voting LNP ALP Axis of Evil is Voting for child Abuse from Trafficking.

I have proven false allegations of DV, proven corruption in Queensland Government, have court orders for my 5yo to see me every week, legal aid Queensland has blocked contact for over 2 years, am still waiting new orders from August 2014 trial, my Surfers Paradise State and Fed LNP reps got me on charges s474.17 a fed indictment from an email on my sons 5th birthday, i’m getting a summary trial, no legal aid, no legal rep, no jury, 3 years prison. Voting LNP ALP Axis of Evil is Voting for child Abuse from Trafficking.

Unfortunately it will get worse, our public services attract sociopaths, psychopaths, peodafiles, nacrtists etc lie flies on sh#t. Question is how do we fix it, given every dog sh#t is working against us in our public services. We need to organise real people to take up parliamentary seats. candidates, independents or other wise.

Kickstart 2015 by being proactive from now‏

fireworks

01 January 2015

Hi All

Here attached is good reading to begin 2015 with thanks to Lone Fathers Association Australia for the great job they do in producing a great newsletter.  Note the branches listed and get along and give force to change in 2015 or if no branch is in your area get one started and contact Barry Williams to help you get another branch up and running.  Not only for the duration of your own case but for years after like me now over 15 years and still driving for the equality of fathers out of Government Administration.

http://lonefathers.org.au/

Here’s an easy start of something very positive right now offsetting feminist propaganda about domestic violence.

Read Bliney Dan on page 21 and read Professor Patrick Parkinson Report on false allegations attached here.  Run off a few copies of his research he submitted to The Senate and get an appointment with your nearest Station Sergeant and explain to them how false allegations leave harm upon the father falsely accused and that false allegation can be prosecuted by police under the Police Administration Act for also being a waste of Taxpayers Resources especially under budget cuts.  If it still goes to court as a false allegation it then comes under the Criminal Code Act for the misuse of courts and the penalty for the false claimant is the same as what they were trying .to have falsely imposed.  A false report is a serious legal matter not being properly handled by police. Run off the ABS stats too for police.  They are       GOVERNMENTS OWN STATISTICS that police should be heeding as the status quo.

And that Police must by way of their Oath of Office abandon their long ago adopted and unlawful feminists solely male blame Duluth Model of administering Domestic Violence.

Come on now and make 2015 a year of being proactive restoring truth and gender equality in these heterosexual administrations.  The feminists are doing it all of the time surely fathers can find some time to counterbalance their propaganda with the likes of Professor Parkinson’s Research. Professor Parkinson is a professor of law with as specialization in family law at NSW University email patrick.parkinsion@sydney.edu.au

Regards

Robert K

Phone 08 8932 333908 8932 3339

Reading View. Alt Shift A for Accessibility Help.

False Allegations of Abuse – Submission by Prof. Parkinson to Senate

Excerpt of submission to the Senate Committee: There is now a very widespread view in the community that some family violence orders are sought for tactical or collateral reasons to do with family law disputes. People have become very cynical about them. A national survey conducted in 2009, with over 12,500 respondents, found that 49% of respondents agreed with the proposition that ‘women going through custody battles often make up or exaggerate claims of domestic violence in order to improve their case’, and only 28% disagreed. While it might be expected that men would be inclined to believe this, 42% of women did so as well.  The view that some family violence order applications are unjustified appears to be shared by state magistrates in New South Wales and Queensland. Hickey and Cumines in a survey of 68 NSW magistrates concerning apprehended violence orders (AVOs) found that 90% agreed that some AVOs were sought as a tactic to aid their case in order to deprive a former partner of contact with the children. About a third of those who thought AVOs were used tactically indicated that it did not occur ‘often’, but one in six believed it occurred ‘all the time’. A similar survey of 38 Queensland magistrates found that 74% agreed with the proposition that protection orders are used in Family Court proceedings as a tactic to aid a parent’s case and to deprive their partner of contact with their children.

90% of surveyed NSW Magistrates agreed that AVOs were sometimes or often sought as a tactic in order to deprive a former partner of contact with the children.

In research that our research team recently published on the views of 40 family lawyers in NSW, almost all solicitors thought that tactical applications for AVOs occurred, with the majority considering it happened often. In another study based upon interviews with 181 parents who have been involved in family law disputes, we found a strong perception from respondents to family violence orders (both women and men) that their former partners sought a family violence order in order to help win their family law case. This is a quote from one of the women in our study. Her former husband, who we also interviewed, sought an apprehended violence order (AVO) to keep her away from the house after she had left it.

A survey of 38 Queensland magistrates found that 74% agreed with the proposition that protection orders are used in Family Court proceedings as a tactic to aid a parent’s case and to deprive their partner of contact with their children.

She said this: “I thought this is ridiculous. What’s he giving me an AVO for? I haven’t done anything to him. I haven’t hit him, kicked him. We never had any violence in our marriage. Why have I got an AVO?  … you can put an AVO on someone and say that they’re violent, and the only way you can get a child off their mother is because they’re violent. And that’s why I think he gave me the AVO.” The belief that family violence orders are a weapon in the war between parents is fuelled by the fact that judges are required under the Family Law Act to consider such family violence orders in determining the best interests of the child. The proposed clause in this Bill takes the law back to what it was before 2006, without any explanation for why Parliament should reverse its previous decision at least to limit the provision. It really doesn’t matter whether this belief that family violence orders are used tactically is true or not. The fact is that the perception is out there and it is held by state magistrates and family lawyers, as well as the wider community. The retention of this provision in the Family Law Act simply fuels the suspicion that family violence orders are being misused. This is damaging to the credibility of the family violence order system and the courts.The second reason why the requirement to consider family violence orders ought to be removed is that this serves absolutely no purpose. Yes, the court needs to know about the existence of a current family violence order in order to consider how to frame its own orders (s.60CG), but that is dealt with by requiring people to inform the court of such orders (s.60CF). Why consider them again in deciding what is in the best interests of a child (s.60CC(3))? The court is already required to consider the history of violence. What does it add to require the court also to consider a family violence order? The impression given by the legislation is that these orders are somehow evidence that there has been violence. However, that is a misunderstanding.

In research that our research team recently published on the views of 40 family lawyers in NSW, almost all solicitors thought that tactical applications for AVOs occurred, with the majority considering it happened often.

Family violence orders have absolutely no evidential value in the vast majority of cases. This is because, in the vast majority of cases, they are consented to without admissions. The hearings in these uncontested cases are very brief indeed. Prof. Rosemary Hunter, in observations in Victoria in 1996–97, found that the median hearing time for each application was only about three minutes. Applications were typically dealt with in a bureaucratic manner, with magistrates being distant and emotionally disengaged. To the extent that applicants were asked to give oral evidence, they were typically asked to confirm the content of their written application, and very little exploration of the grounds for the application took place. Dr Jane Wangmann, in a recent analysis of court files in NSW, reached finding very similar to Hunter’s. In her observations of AVO matters in 2006–7, she found, like Hunter, that cases were dealt with in three minutes or less. She also noted that the information provided in written complaints was brief and sometimes vague. It is hardly surprising, then, that judges in family law cases draw no inferences from the mere existence of a family violence order. This has been the clear view of family lawyers for the last 15 years. Indeed, in the research we recently published on the views of 40 family lawyers in NSW, none of the lawyers who responded to the question believed that judicial officers gave AVOs much consideration in determining parenting disputes. Judges, they indicate, want to evaluate the evidence of violence itself, not the fact that another court has made an order about it by consent and without admissions. https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=f6c1e09d-3367-4ed1-b0da-aed26481ea59 Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence) Bill 2011 Submission to Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs  by Prof. Patrick Parkinson, University of Sydney

STOP PRESS! PREROGATIVE WRITS OF MANDAMUS SERVED IN THE HIGH COURT TODAY!

December 2010

In an historic first for Australia, Prerogative Writs of Mandamus were served in the High Court in Canberra at about 3.48 pm this afternoon pertaining to the illegal “corporations” that have been formed, and are being operated under the “Commonwealth of Australia” ABN122 104 616 and the America Securities Exchange Commission No. 000 080 5157, and commanding that this fraudulent “corporation,” and all of the fraudulent subsidiary “companies” – being those in each of the States – be dissolved. Queenslanders will no doubt be familiar with the “Brigalow Corporation,” brought to the attention of the people some years ago by Sue Maynes in New South Wales, Brian Shaw in Victoria, Wayne Glew et al in Western Australia, as well as many other good and hard-working people for the cause in many other States.

This action will have repercussions throughout Australia, and around the world, and result in the formation of the King’s Bench, which may result in the dissolution of all of the governments – State and Federal – as they are all guilty of fraud – and possibly the arrest and jailing of a number of people – politicians, government “advisers” and lackeys, judges, and many others. The list is already quite extensive, including former politicians and Prime Ministers, Premiers, on and on it goes! As we said in a previous issue of the Voice, “Runnymede, here we come again!”

This is the result of people realising their sovereign rights under the Australian Consitution Act 1901, sections 1 to 128, Section 61 of Magna Carta 1215/1297, and the Statute of Monopolities 1623-4, where there has been a number of frauds of gigantic proportions perpetrated on the sovereign people of Australia.

We congratulate people like Sue Maynes and many others, who have toiled for years to try to get something done about the situation. We have waited and waited for someone to act, hoping someone would, and having waited for years, with nothing happening, we decided to do it ourselves. Together, we quietly formed an alliance with other hard working sovereign people from other States, issued the writs this week in the High Court, serving them this afternoon. It was a tremendous rush, to get them in to the High Court before they close tomorrow for the year, and we sincerely thank all those who gave their all to get them sent in time for issuing this afternoon in the High Court in Canberra..

The Chief Justice Mr. French does not have long to act, and he must act. If he does not, he may be charged with high treason, which according to law, is punishable by death. YOU WON’T SEE THIS IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ANY TIME SOON!

White Ribbon considering legal action against men’s rights group

A US-based men’s rights group has purchased a similar domain name to promote its own cause. The URL whiteribbon.org directs to a website that looks very similar to whiteribbon.org.australia, but is run by a group calling itself ‘A Voice for Men’.

It also uses the name ‘White Ribbon’, but claims to be raising awareness about domestic abuse as a non-gendered issue, highlighting men also as victims and the effects on children.

The “copycat” website claimed that violence against women was an exaggerated myth at the cost of men.

The group claimed on its website that the idea of a female victim of domestic violence was manufactured, accusing universities and researches on domestic violence prevention of man hating.

National Executive Engagement Officer for White Ribbon Australia, Fayssal Sari, told SBS the group was using deceitful tactics to mislead people who had genuine concerns for victims of domestic violence.

Listen: Fayssal Sari speaks with Widyan Al Ubudy.

7317bb06-b3ca-4b16-94fa-b89aecbb9f1d

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/11/06/white-ribbon-considering-legal-action-against-mens-rights-group

“End Violence Against Everyone”

1926785_473981019409382_8390872773784998840_n

https://www.facebook.com/Whiteribbonworldwide

abs_logo_wh2

Australian Bureau of Statistics

AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRACY ONLINE PARTY, DEMOCRACY 2.0 THE UPGRADE Only together we can over run the ALP LNP Cults with our own direct democratic party, to make the changes we want and need for our children and our children’s children.

Change won’t happen unless we make it happen, we have to do it together as one, unless we do we will relive history.

Point is laws are only any good if they protect us and our rights, freedoms and liberties, laws are only good if they are upheld at all times equally.

It is obvious to most that the government and pathetic judiciary, our employees do not up hold the law nor the spirit of the law, because they hold us in contempt and this is why we are here to be a political force to deal with them, because they believe we work for them, and in reality we do, we work and pay them tax an they hold us in contempt..

21

 

Dads protest outside court to see their children

Andy Parks
Dads outside the Family Court in Lismore protesting about lengthy delays that keep them seperated from their children.Andy Parks
TODAY marks 12 months since the last time Adam (not his real name) saw his daughter.
TODAY marks 12 months since the last time Adam (not his real name) saw his daughter.

He marked the occasion by staging a protest outside the Family Court in Lismore along with a couple of other dads who have been through lengthy court cases in order to see their children.

“Every adjournment is a sentence for the non-custodial parent,” Adam said.

The court has ordered that Adam be given supervised visit with his daughter every fortnight. He drove to Coffs Harbour for these visits on a number of occasions, but the mother decided it was too stressful for their daughter and just stopped coming.

“I don’t get any photos, artworks, news from what’s happening at school – nothing. She (the mother) ignores everything (the court ordered) and there is no penalty.”

Many of the delays in his case are because the judge is based in Townsville and only occasionally put on the Brisbane circuit, which includes the Lismore Family Court.

Adam’s story resonated with several passers-by who offered support while The Northern Star was visiting.

“We went through it and everyone came out bitter and twisted. It’s a f**ked system,” one woman offered.

“So many people, particularly men, have told me not to bother, not to feed the system and the lawyers, to wait until your kid grows up and that they will come back to you then,” Adam said. “But I don’t want to do that.”

One father said in order to be eligible for Legal Aid, he had to give up his job.

Adam has spent so much time studying the legal proceedings of his case, he is now studying law at SCU and one day hopes to be able to help other dads in Family Court matters.

If two nations are at war

but only one nation knows it, that one nation will win.

EMILY’s List Australia – Current Members of Parliament

penny wong colour web ready 2

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately it will get worse, our public services attract sociopaths, psychopaths, peodafiles, nacrtists etc like flies. Question is how do we fix it, given every sh#t in our public services is working against us.

We need to organise real people to take up parliamentary seats. candidates, independents or other wise.

lp

OUR SOLUTION AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRACY ONLINE PARTY. DEMOCRACY 2.0 THE UPGRADE

10516931_712567022160059_2049446783_n

10712804_735282736526447_5375800710597531308_n

 

10686989_296031523937467_1434876597261433624_n

 

10450931_1570223063206066_5671424695153606098_n

 

10678662_1458835544399322_4991491977839488049_n

21

 

Shared Parenting Laws Mis-Represented by ex-Judge Richard Chisholm

retired-family-law-judge-richard-chisholm

Retired Family Court judge Richard Chisholm, now an ­Australian National University adjunct professor, has written a blueprint for overhauling Australia’s Family Law Act, and wants the laws to be changed, apparently to remove the prospect of Shared Parenting as a potential outcome in Family Law Court proceedings.

This is nothing new for Chisholm, who has a penchant for writing reports and reviews that have consistent themes, notably that Shared Parenting laws must be removed from Australia’s Family Law act.

In this new blueprint, Chisholm has lamented that the current laws have lead to confusion in the minds of many parents, who he claims, falsely believe that children are entitled to have a meaningful relationship (including parenting time) with both parents in the event of divorce.

It stands to reason that Chisholm therefore believes that Australia’s Shared Parenting laws don’t in fact promote Shared Parenting, so parents should not expect Shared Parenting outcomes, or alternatively they do expect Shared Parenting but should not.

According to Chisholm, because of this alleged mis-conception, he presumably wants any references to Shared Parenting (and synonyms), as well as terms like “Equal Shared Parental Responsibility”, “Significant and Substantial Parenting Time” and “Equal Parenting Time”, to be removed from the act, along with about another fifth of Part VII of the Family Law Act.

He wants this whole section replaced with a presumption that “it is in a child’s best interests for both parents to continue to have parental responsibility“.

Sounds familiar?

Well if not let me give you a hint, from my reading what he is suggesting is that he wants the Family Law act to go back to a time prior to the 2006 Shared Parenting amendments, where parental responsibility was a meaningless term that in practice amounted to sole parental responsibility, the beholder being the parent who had physical custody.

Chisholm hopes and expectations however are not supported  by the historical facts underlying the basis of his reports.

One claim by Chisholm and others regarding the proposed family law reforms post 2006 has been a mis-representation of the history of these amendments.

We now have a case where the public is being led to believe that Australia’s Shared Parenting laws were never intended to increase Shared Parenting, bizarre as this may seem given the term that these amendments are almost universally known as is Australia’s “Shared Parenting” laws.

Despite Chisholm’s misleading claim, the reality is that the core driving force behind the 2006 Family Law amendments was the principle of Shared Parenting (being defined in its simplest form as equal, or substantial and significant shared living arrangements.) This was underscored and emphasised by the Prime Minister of the time, John Howard in numerous instances.

This was ultimately the primary goal of these 2006 family law amendments, and no amount of revisionism or re-casting can change the historical foundation and motivation behind these laws.

If anyone has any doubts about the intent of the laws, I recommend you go back to the foundation bi-partisan report in 2003, supported by both the Coalition and the ALP, called “Every Picture Tells a Story.”

Although the final legislation did not adopt all the recommendations, the intent of the changes were very clearly articulated in this report, despite the compromise of the 2 -hurdles to Shared Parenting (incorporating Equal Shared Parental Responsibility as the first hurdle), being a necessary compromise to seal bi-artisan support for the report.

The report however in intent and purpose is unequivocal and reads:

“Despite the intentions of the Family Law Reform Act of 1995, shared parenting and shared physical care have not become a reality for the vast majority of separated families.”

In response to this failure in the 1995 Family Law changes, the Committee recommended that the new Shared Parenting amendments (eventually enacted in 2006) should contain the presumption that children should “be given maximum opportunity of spending significant amounts of time with each parent.

The report’s intentions were clear, that there be a Presumption of Equal Shared Parental Responsibility (the first hurdle), that would be struck down if certain events occurred, such as family violence, huge distances between households, or other relevant issues preventing Shared Parenting.

If such events did not occur, then the Courts were compelled to order Shared Parenting, either Equal Parenting Time, or Substantial and Significant Parenting time, if in the child’s best interest, and if not ordered, the Judge had to explain why not.

To illustrate this mis-representation by Chisholm more recently, in 2011 these Shared Parenting laws were amended by the then Gillard government to make it more difficult for some parents to get Shared Parenting arrangements with their children if there were allegations of family violence (despite it already being part of the 2006 amendments).

In response to these proposed changes, George Christensen, in opposition at the time, stated on record that:

“What is inside this Trojan horse, the malicious code that will infect society, is an attempt to undermine equal access for both parents. This change would invite the court to ignore the requirement to consider the second pillar—the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents.”

A recent article reported in the Australian on Chisholm’s proposed family law act reform blueprint, further distorts the original intent of the 2006 Shared Parenting Family Law amendments, either deliberately, mistakenly or by complicity by the journalist involved, Nicola Berkovic.

The article suggests that Australian family law act could be simplified, by removing some convoluted section in the act.

The journalist, Nicola Berkovic, then used comments by other notable family law spokes-people supporting the above premise, to imply that this view also includes their agreement that Australia’s Shared Parenting laws should also be ditched.

In fact, as is the case with the pre-eminent expert in family law and the man sometimes referred to as the architect of the 2006 Shared Parenting laws, Professor Patrick Parkinson, this is not his position at all.

In a similar tactic, Anti-Shared Parenting advocates like Chisholm have also used the guise that Shared Parenting laws expose children of separated families to increased risks of child neglect, child abuse or child murder, and yet the subsequent reviews of the 2006 Shared Parenting laws plus numerous other studies and research found that nothing could be further from the truth.

More on this other mis-representation often peddled by the usual suspects, in another article.