There you go again. This is why lawyers charge for so many hours of work. It takes them 10 hours to get to a point that someone with common sense understands right away.
So what's your answer then? That response took 30 odd words, carried another insult, but didn't answer my question, when a 'yes' or 'no' would have sufficed. Ironic response, no?
Does my long ago divorce count?
Why ask me? Does it?
I've sat and listened to lots of court cases, particularly ones involving domestic violence committed by men and women.
And did your observations of same align with your arguments on this thread? Why didn't you raise this before, given that I initially said my comments were based solely on my experiences in practice? I would have thought that if your observations in court aligned with your arguments you would have mentioned that, rather than relying on your blogs, stats and videos. You must admit it is a bit curious, no?
Unlike some here, I don't rely on anecdotal evidence. People who do usually have a self-centered prejudiced opinion and don't know how to overview a situation.
Yes you did. You relied on a couple of personal experiences where you say you witnessed some domestic violence incidents. I suppose if I wished to be technical, I could also say all the studies you've put forward are anecdotal too in that they cannot be tested as to their veracity or otherwise.
In passing, would it be anecdotal evidence to put forward (hypothetically, as it would be very difficult to do) copies of ALL judgments issued by whatever court in respect of domestic violence matters in the sense that if say 5000 judgements showed females were convicted of having committed DV and 5000 men were convicted of same your position would be vindicated?
It may be legally enshrined
That's interesting. I'd hate to be in the poor judge's shoes who has to make equal custody by virtue of a guillotine law when other evidence shows it wouldnt be in a child's best interest to do so because of say a parent is a drug addict, or abusive and so on. On second thoughts, if we adopt your model, no one would have to go to court because custody would be 50/50 automatically, no q's asked etc etc, thus no need to litigate even if litigation is needed to ensure a child's best interests are protected.
that's not how the law is carried out since child custody almost always defaults to the woman, even when she is the 'bad guy'.
Where's the proof that this is the way the law works. Can I have a link please to the section or Article (I think thats the term in the USA) that prescribes this?
Between 1980 and now the educational establishment in the U.S. has done everything from affirmative action to additional special incentives for women.
Ok, so the education system has favoured women purely because they are women? Isn't that discrimination (ie treating someone less favourably purely because of their gender)?
I may start a thread on this if I can tie it to Poland in some manner.
Why agonise over this issue when you can go to the off topic lounge?
Because the U.S. outlawed Debtors Prison long ago; interesting that this is the exception.
Could it be that the US government kept a special place in jail for defaulting payers because the US government wants to send a clear message that non payment of child support will not be tolerated and the govt is reluctant to pay for a child when the father or mother should be doing so.
Non payment of child support really irks me. Does it irk you?
So you really are unaware that most of such filings by women are false and are used as "divorce incentives" to procure custody and monetary benefits?
How do you know they are 'false'? Are you saying this because when you went to court and observed DV cases as you mentioned the judge struck them out for want of prosecution or found in favour of the respondent. Whilst I value your opinion, with these sorts of issues I'm not really interested in your opinion but I am interested in the facts and material in support.
I also note that you didn't actually respond to my assumptions. In any event, here's a link to the case of Kennon, which is authority used when arguing DV issues in Family Law property settlements:
austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/1997/27.html
It's an interesting case for two reasons: it talks about DV in Australia and gives insight as to how property settlement works here. If you're interested in how parenting matters work, let me know and I'll give you links to some cases and legislation, or you can have a squiz yourself on the austlii website.