How it happens

Great points :) sometimes it just doesn't work out that way though.
I tried to stay for over two years while my x battered me daily. I
hoped foolishly that she would come to her senses. AND I didn't charge her with a DVO after she hit me on a couple of occasions when I called the cops. (She hit me nearly every day and abused me but on those couple of occasions I called the police because I had had enough).
The cops came and talked me down. They do the same to all men who report battery. The truth in that instance does not serve their ideals so they divert your attention.
They appeal to your manhood and say things like "Mate, you don't want the mother of your kids charged do you mate?"
Cops are brainwashed by the training systems they go through thinking they serve the public when in fact they serve the legislation. Don't think for a moment that letting her get away with anything is going to help your children or your situation. You might get poo poohed a bit but tough!

Cops love locking guys up truth or not. They do it all the time. It's a process they are familiar with and entails little processing time and cheers from the Fem nazi courts and supporters can be heard in the wind every time a man gets locked up under their device.
So fight it to the hilt and if your x batters you or shows violence in front of or to your kids have them CHARGED.

HEAR me mates, I wish I did then, they'd do it to you in the blink of an eye and once they taste that condoning victory they'll never look back! Henceforth they will be part of the machine and if they compromise with you they risk losing face.
I reckon that IF a woman batters or is violent in front of or to children men should take heed of those who have lost so much and know they will win NOTHING if they let x's get away with stuff.
I am looking into having my x charged for the times I didn't press charges as I didn't press charges because of duress and signed nothing. AND there is NO statute of limitations in our country especially where it regards violence against women.
There is merely the burden of proof. BUT that can wait for court or the PP.
Just like our sweet x's we can make complaint to the DVO and AVO constructs and for as much as they will try to divert you from doing it they can't stop you filing and they can't stop you taking her to court about it either.
So I challenge there double standards. I'm going to challenge them
in court.
I can make applications just like she did only I will have the
truth and evidence undeniable! My lawyer thinks I'm wasting time and
wants to focus on the family court so guess what I have decided to make the DVO's my self and let the lawyer get on with the Family court.
I've done all the groundwork with amazing support from my new missus. She's awesome!
AND all the well wishes and fantastic insight and ideas from this group has given me confidence and a will to fight. I am so grateful for all your help.
I am lucky that I took computer evidence to court. It has weight, esspecially in the Magistrates court and computer evidence is strong because police rely on it in court for so many matters of prosecution.
If the courts decide to go against quality computer evidence well they fly in the face of so many police that utilise it by setting precedent that may damage future police prosecution investigations and outcomes not nessesarily involved with the family court.

Criminal courts have been using computers for years to prove all sorts of crimes. If they thow out computer evidence I would be stunned now.
Why would I be stunned? because when the police prosecutor asked me how I made the recordings (why ask) I told him the truth which I was afraid of as I didn't know if it would be heard or not.

BUT as it stands the police prosecutor didn't bat an eyelid. I did notice a change in his disposition toward my evidence after my answer that I recorded her on a computer which I did!
The PP received my evidence readily. I am sad for so many men who used tapes. TAPES unfortunately are dated device that the police are fast not relying on in court. EXCEPT in sealed environments like a police interview room or the like.
So I think that police prosecutors realise it is futile to challenge computer evidence.
Just Imagine if computer evidence was denied in court what would be the ramifications? Seems it is an inroad to getting evidence into court.
Realise though when you start recording her there will be no coming back to her. She will hate you for exposing her and so will her family and all the constructs around the Family court.
Bad form they'll say what kind of guy records his missus they say, all these sort of things have been said to me.

TOUGH! I am a battered man and I am proud to expose the people who paint men as abusers and women as miss goody two shoes. Screw that! I damn them to hell for their lies and abuse of me and my kids!:)

They all knew what they were doing when they lied about me, when they denigrated me, when they built there piles of files against me. They seeded the wind, they will reap the whirlwind and no one deserves it more than the liars and system cheats of our generation.
They KNOW the wrongs they do and they cackle at us all while they do them. RECORD EVERYTHING record your phonecalls to CSA and family court, record the police hell they record you!
Tell them your doing it it soon changes the way they talk to you at
least.
All of a sudden instead of brushing you off they start dotting their I's and crossing their t's, all of a sudden they make you aware of stuff they are supposed to. Really tell them your recording the conversation and find out for yourself. They know the ramifications of being caught out.
AND if you give them fair warning they don't get too shitty about it. I for one aint gunnu let them get away with it anymore! My kids deserve the fight and I am compelled as their father to deliver that fight.
I don't think anyone would expect anything less of a man than to fight for their children. NEVER GIVE UP when one way faulters find another.

Many of the issues we discuss here on F4E are really human and civil rights. Too often, these terms are used without any real understanding of what they mean.
(Below is an excerpt from the "Daily India" show )
http://www.dailyindia.com/show/11682.php/Human_rights_not_akin_to_legal_rights:_Amartya_Sen

Much of the 20th century was spent trying to define Human Rights in various documents. Very often, the definitions referred to historical documents which defined Civil Rights within one culture or another (the UK -Magna Carta - or the US Constitution, usually).

For example, Does a father (or mother) have a human right to access to their children?
Intuitively, every person associated with this group would shout: "Yes!"
The idea that a parent doesn't have the right to be a part of their children's lives seems too simple an idea to question.
Why does something so basic have to be questioned? -- Because unless it is defined within the law, the right does not exist. It is not explicitly defined anywhere in the law.
Some people will say that it exists in Common Law, but give me a minute.

Civil Rights are defined by the government. Usually the term, "Civil Rights" refer to a body of practice about how the law is applied.

There is still the letter of the laws themselves.
Effectively, the right of a parent to their children is defined in the laws. Presently, the parents share that responsibility with the state. The laws of Australia define under what circumstances a parent may be a part of their children's lives.

For example, if a parent is abusive, that parent may be removed from their children's lives -- by law.
The state has overridden the intuitive perception that a parent should be a part of their child's life, and taken that responsibility upon themselves.
The state has defined the Civil Rights of the parent and the child.

So where does Common Law come in?
Common Law is based on the history of how laws have been put to use. The intuitive rights of parent are defined in Common Law repeatedly, in every conceivable way. In order to apply Common Law to a question before a court, someone must cite the historical decision (and hope that the opposing counsel has not found a more recent or more similar example.)
Some people will say that Common Law Rights are based on 'common sense', but that isn't true. All it takes is a quick look at the stories on this group to see that.

In effect, Common Law Rights do not exist. Why? Because in the practice of law through history rights have been defined in every conceivable way. The only 'common sense' to it is that rights are defined to suit the politics of the government at the moment.
The Australian papers are full of examples every day: speed cameras used for revenue raising; government corruption; unpopular wars; etc.
The brutal, prejudiced way family law has been implemented is just another example. Unfortunately, this issue does not make the papers often.
In order for rights of any kind to exist in Common Law there must be a legally defined way to exercise those rights. In other words, if there isn't a law, it ain't a right -- human, civil, or otherwise.
And Common Law follows every decision, right or wrong.

The letter of the law depends completely on the goodwill of those who enforce that law. And how people enforce a law depends on the politics at the time, and the general myths of common perception.