I admit I hadn't read it all properly - I was being lazy again and hoping you would do that for me, especially as you are so much better than I at elucidating these weasel words lawyers use so often in order to deny what ordinary people think they've been given.
It was actually taken from a post Shy used on the Australian forum we both use - DOTA or Dads on the Air, where she has been interviewed recently on their radio show. She used it as an example of progress in the US in an effort to counter my more negative viewpoint of what is going on in your family law.
Anyway, thanks for the critical analysis, I have already used the example "SY" gave me to balance the argument, and I will keep yours in case I need it later. I don't want to put Shy (or Tanya, to use her real name) off her battle, not that I'm likely to by the way she handles the situations she has faced. She is taking on a pretty anti-woman forum over there and seems to be doing well from what I can tell.
Thanks again,
Graham
P.S. I did get the distinction concerning "if both parents agree" attached to some shared parenting presumption statutes (though we sort of agree with that don't we?).
I think "presumption" simply means the courts will act as though "X" is the case unless they are shown why "X" is not the case. So a presumption in favour of contact for decent parents means that whoever wishes to prevent them having contact with their children must show why this shouldn't happen to the courts satisfaction (like the kids keep running away from their parent or whatever).