According to news reports, the male person in this matter was convicted in criminal court for possession of child porn. It was not just some vague allegation in the Family Court. Furthermore, it was recommended by the prosecution that the offender be placed on a sex offenders register and the judge accepted this. This indicates that the material in question must have have been very severe.

It was disturbing that, among the angry reactions in the news forum you cited, was the number of people who actually downplayed the severity of possessing child pornography or even defended it. One writer said that the man was "merely just downloading child Pornograhpy[sic]" (comment 62). Another trivialised possession of child porn as a "nasty quirk" and that readers ought to "Get over yourselves really." Same commenter pointed to a feeble analogy "Just like the video game arguement just because you see something doesnt make you want to do it. Killing a character on screen in a game doesnt make you want to commit murder." (comment 129) Another saisd "The fact is that he promoted illegal thoughts. If he filmed something he was a part of harming a child. His biggest crime seems to be the thought crime. (Comment 152)

It seems that these commentators have missed the point. Child porn is not the same as animated cartoon chracter being blown apart nor are they actors pretending to be children. Child porn is the depictions of real child sexual abuse for adults' amusmement. Anyone who uses it may not be a child abuser per se, but they are certainly an accessory to it.

I've never read a bigger load of bias cobblers in all my life!

It is embarrassingly clear that the author of this trashy piece of journalism has little or no understanding of the issue fathers continue to face in the Family Court system in Australia. I have experienced this injustice at first hand and I remain very unimpressed!
Why did my lawyers and barristers, who are seasoned Family Court advocates, advise me that “the mother would clearly get away with more” than me? Put simply, mothers are treated with less severity than fathers. Why did my lawyers advise me that we needed to be very well prepared in our documentation, much more so than the mother? In fact I asked my lawyers this very question, and the reply was, “because she is the mother, she doesn’t need to be well prepared”!
Bias is alive and healthy within the Family Court system. The problem is that no politician will risk loosing the woman’s vote if this practice is to be stopped. It’s a National scandal.

I was dismayed to discover that ABC News Online gave some space to the opinions held by a *particular* fathers' rights group on this matter. I am not opposing the airing of the opinions of a father's rights group. Indeed, I was looking forward to hearing fathers' lobby groups attempts to justify this decision.

The group cited in Ms Merkins' op-ed is no ordinary father's rights This group is "the Blackshirts". Its founder, John Abbot was quoted in this story: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/15/2846242.htm?site=northtas&section=news

Abbott has escaped jail time but not a criminal conviction for his organised harassment and intimidation of women. See

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/02/1096527988330.html

Abbott led groups of masked men into protests outside the homes of women with the clear intent to cause fear. " ...in at least 12 recent cases, disgruntled men have staged demonstrations outside women's homes, using megaphones to broadcast allegations of infidelity and child abuse to their neighbours...." (see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australian-legal-threat-to-fathers-in-blackshirts-649477.html)

He also performed letter-box drops shaming his victims to their neighbours and made late-night crank calls to victims. For someone who claims that the family home is soveriegn, he contradicts himself by being a busybody on steriods.

Abbott is more than just a misguided and benign vigilante nor a common garden variety right-wing nut job. He was branded as "gutless" by the Victorian Attorney-General, the Hon Robert Hulls MP. The-then Chief Justice of the Family Court, Alistair Nicholson, is quoted to have described the Blackshirts' behaviour as "one step along the path to terrorism" (see http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2002/s629744.htm) Yea verrily, the other fathers' rights groups have distanced themselves from him and his extremist tactics.

Abbot purports to be interested in children's rights but really seems to be obsessed with permissive female sexuality. Anyone who wants to read about Abbott's organisation can do it on their own. I refuse to cite his website.

This angry yet dangerous stand-over man should not be given a modicum of credibility. He does not deserve and should not get any encouragement.

I read the Tasmanian judgement. The father not only downloaded child porn, he had admitted being in bed with one of his daughters and was subject to a restraint order. He was also described as 'domineering'. The judgement makes clear that (a) there is no competence in the family law system to respond appropriately to child sex offenders (the judge and his advisors imagine that daylight prevents attacks) (b)the laws as implemented expose children to serious harm and risk of harm (c)there IS NO PROTECTION FROM ABUSE FOR CHILDREN OF SEPARATED PARENTS IN THE FAMILY LAW SYSTEM. The public care. The politicians' are running scared from the pro-paedophiliac fathers' rightsters - the likely outcome is that we will continue to have a pro-paedophile family law system because the government is too scared to do anything. They would rather have sexually abused children - they don't vote anyway.

Othello,

' Child porn is not the same as animated cartoon character'

Oh yes it can be...

http://www.theage.com.au/national/simpsons-cartoon-ripoff-is-child-porn-judge-20081208-6tmk.html

The part I don't understand is why 'The fact that the Family Court statistics reveal a very high rate of mental illness of mothers (31 per cent) compared to fathers (2 per cent) in a jurisdiction where child abuse is “real … severe and serious”, in the context of the suspect paradigms that are being invoked (PDF 63KB) is gravely concerning.'

I think that just shows that men are deemed to be abusers and women are deemed to have mental problems. Men are acting their gender, while women should be helped with their mental illness, but it's the same problem with different symptoms.

The 37% of men who are violent in the study are the missing lot who should have been looked at for some mental illness. That's where the bias lies. Or possibly some of the 36% of mental illness mothers should have been looked at more closely for violence.

Anyway, I don't see how the author has proved anywhere that any particular court decision is influenced by some 'fathers' (Apparently now the word fathers must be enclosed in quotes, revealing the author's bias IMO) groups.

It is disheartening to see that the question of bias in the family courts has come down quoting specific cases and sexual bias. Should the father in question be allowed unsupervised access? No. Should evidence that a mother is a violent alcoholic be excluded from the courts? No.
No fault divorce was a good idea but it has excluded basic evidence to the suitably of either the mother of the father to be the primary care giver.
Will me ever get past the sexually based arguments and look at what is the best for the children?

“Father’s rights campaigners also claim that allegations are raised by women in the Family Court simply because they want to deny separated fathers access to their children. They allege that women routinely make “false allegations” of domestic violence, that accusations of child abuse are in “epidemic” proportions, and that women are just as violent as men.”

Exactly why are these claims wrong? Prove that they are wrong. Be brave.

“Barry Williams from the Lone Fathers Association has stated that “official statistics on family violence ... used by the Family Court, academia, law societies and other professional bodies, are incorrect”.

What are the correct figures? Show some courage and post some statistics that you have the courage to stand behind. Be careful, look at what happened to Dr Floods reputation when he was economical with the truth.

“ Obviously, the experts are not producing the results that the father’s rights campaigners want to see”

Yes, they are, you just won’t read about it in this article.

I’m one of those people who thinks that Family Courts do have a bias against dads. I need to see good solid arguments why I may be wrong. This article was based on two hand-picked case studies and a bunch of aspersions about fathers groups that the author didn’t have the guts to back up with solid arguments, explanations or statistics. The author has adopted a small target strategy, making as few specific claims as possible. To win the debate, she needs to take these fathers groups on with rational arguments and specific claims.Have a crack, see how you go.

We will never get past the sexuality-based arguments as long as the Family Law Act and the Family Courts give absolute paramountcy to parent's rights and give so little importance to children's rights. The children's rights to be protected from abuse and exploitaion must be given paramountcy in the law and the Courts, as must their right to have their views and wishes seriously considered. The presumption that having continued contact with both parents after separation and regardless of how toxic and dangerous a parent may be, is grossly irresponsible and false. The Tasmanian case and so many others nationwide, illustrate these points perfectly.
The label of Borderline Personality Disorder cannot be ascribed to anyone except by a qualified and experienced psychiatrist who would advisedly and in accordance with standards of ethical professional conduct, have carried out a very thorough and careful assessment of the individual over a period of at least six months before making such a diagnosis, bearing in mind the very serious impact such a diagnosis will have on that person's life. Any other person who makes such an assertion is making a slanderous statement and without such an assessment the label has neither validity nor utility. Courts should therefore rule such allegations as inadmissible.

Houellebecq,

I agree with you. In our society womens problems are medicalized while mens are criminalized. Witness mens versus womens incareration rates. If women suffer greater mental illness than men then why do men kill themselves so much more often? Women have long achieved equal rights but are a long way from equal responsibility.

As for the author, she obviously has issues with men. Perhaps her ex isn't paying her the money she feels 'entitled' to.

'One answer may be because there has been a long-standing vociferous accusation against the Family Court by campaigners of fathers’ rights that there is a “bias” against fathers.'

Isn't there an issue that needs to be addressed before we examine these effect of these accusations of bias on the Court - that is, the changes made to Family Law under the Howard government that require the Court to make Shared Parenting Orders, wherever possible?

This was an obvious victory for the fathers' rights advocates - this recent case shows that the victory has been at the expense of children.

The Author makes some gaint leaps of logic as she tries to spin the stats. The simple fact of the matter is 70% of cases are decided in favour of the mother. So when Women rightly talk about a wage bias, however when you look into the facts women tend to work less hours then Men. Therefore nothing to worry about.

"95-96 per cent do not end up in the Family Court. That also means that the accusations that the Family Court is biased against “fathers” in general cannot be accurate, "

Or most women who are sexually assulted don't report it, therefor women like being raped.

Clearly not true, There are reasons why Women don't report rape maybe ther could there be reasons why fathers don't go to court?

I think this Author has a bias, do you?

This opinion is full of anecdotes, anecdotes, and more anecdotes...the reality is that it is easy to cherry pick a convenient example to support a point of view. Andrea Yates is no poster child for the mother's movement either.

Anyhow, someone asked for facts, so I dug some up, albeit using the most recent information from the US on child abuse and neglect (see: http://www.nis4.org which is The Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect conducted by the US Department of Health and Human Services and endorsed by 18 major organizations on child welfare). Data were collected over a six month period in late 2005 and early 2006. Results have been annualized.

The study estimated that 4.4 children in 1000 suffered physical abuse, 1.8 children in 1000 suffered sexual abuse, and 4.0 children in 1000 suffered some form of physical neglect during the study period. In terms of severity, 0.03 children in 1000 *DIED* as a result of the abuse, and 6.6 in 1000 suffered serious harm. NOTE: there are about 4 million children in Australia.

SEXUAL ABUSE
Children living with two married biological parents were sexually abused at a significantly lower rate (0.5 per 1,000) than children living in all but one of the other conditions. The exception is children living with unmarried parents whose incidence rate of sexual abuse does not differ from that of children living with married biological parents.
In addition, children living with a single parent who had no cohabiting partner had a lower sexual abuse rate than children living with other married parents and than children living with a single parent with a partner in the home (2.4 versus 4.3 and
9.9 children per 1,000, respectively).

In conclusion, the author proposes circumscribing the presumption of shared parenting when it is clear that child sexual abuse is a) a rare occurrence (0.18% per year), and 2) is *less* likely to be initiated by a biological parent than a step-parent or mum's live-in boyfriend.

All of a sudden "a childs best interest" becomes of paramount importance, but only when family disputes reach the family court.

The arguements presented by author has very little to do with what is in the best interest of the child/ren.

The use of highly emotive arguements do little to advance the cause of what is in a childs best interests.

The plain fact is that some parents regardless of gender are a risk to a childs welfare.

If people are really as concerned about a childs welfare as they claim, then they really need to look at both genders without bias.

Examining overt and covert behaviours.

Stev ~ " when it is clear that child sexual abuse is a) a rare occurrence (0.18% per year), and 2) is *less* likely to be initiated by a biological parent than a step-parent or mum's live-in boyfriend."
It could of course be that very often a `step-parent or mum's live-in boyfriend' has been rejected by previous marital or de facto partners after child abuse allegations perpetrated on their biological children, but which have not been pursued or have been unproven and has then moved on to abuse the children in further relationships. This is a behaviour of paedophiles well known to child protective workers and was a particular feature in the Cleveland Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry in 1987. It is also known in child protection circles that some paedophiles are using Internet Dating websites to specifically seek out mothers with small children for the specific purpose of sexually abusing them. The step-parent and mum's live in boyfriend is in many cases a biological parent so those statistics are irrelevant. A male child sexual abuse perpetrator is unlikely to differentiate between their biological children and non-biological children - their perversion extends to all children. Only the circumstantial opportunities change.

PERPETRATOR STATISTICS

The NIS4 survey mentioned earlier also has detailed information on the gender breakdown of perpetrators of child abuse and neglect.

Physical abuse by a biological parent: Male 48% Female 56%
Sexual abuse by a biological parent: Male 80% Female 22%
Physical neglect (such as not feeding a child): Male 39% Female 87%

Note: percentages sum to more than 100% because two adults could be involved in some incidents.

Note also that these statistics do NOT mean that sexual abuse occurs with 80% of all fathers. Only 5 in 10,000 children suffer sexual abuse in homes they share with both biological parents. Thus, roughly 4 children in 10,000 will be abused by their father and 1 in 10,000 by their mother. (Only about 15 in 10,000 children will suffer severe physical abuse in a home shared with both biological parents.)

A child living with a biological parent and unmarried partner is ELEVEN (11) times more likely to suffer abuse of all forms than one living with his or her biological parents. Oh, and children from low socio-economic backgrounds are about 3-4 times more likely to suffer abuse of all forms.

Thus, the hysteria surrounding the presumption that shared parenting will deliver large numbers of children into the hands of pedophiles seems totally unjustified by statistical evidence. In fact, biological parents are much less likely to sexually abuse a child than non-biological parents. Note also that mothers are more likely to neglect a child and are almost equally likely to physically abuse a child.

It is also worth repeating that, contrary to the impression generated by the author of this article and other commentators, shared parenting is NOT automatically granted in the family court. There is a rebuttable presumption.

Given this is such a storm in a teacup, any thoughtful reader should be forgiven for questioning the real agenda of those so intent on whipping up such vitriolic public sentiment against fathers

Othello,

' Child porn is not the same as animated cartoon character'

Oh yes it can be...

http://www.theage.com.au/national/simpsons-cartoon-ripoff-is-child-porn-judge-20081208-6tmk.html

Thank you Houellebecq, I have more than a passing familiarity with that particular case and the discussion that it evoked about satire vs bonafide child porn.

My main contention is that child porn is REAL child abuse. Since you have triumphantly produced this exception that disproves my rule and that you have demonstrably revealed my fallibility, could this means that you now asserting that viewing child porn is acceptable, a mere trifle, just titilation and Not Really That Bad (tm) ?

"...Clearly not true, There are reasons why Women [sic[] don't report rape maybe ther could there be reasons why fathers don't go to court?

I think this Author has a bias, do you?Posted by cornonacob"

*sigh* cornonacob, rhetorical devices like prefacing a statement with "the fact of the matter..." does not make it one.

A significant reason why many Family Law matters do not end up in court is because, unlike most criminal proceedings (such as your inane rape analogy), there are alternative dispute resolutions available for parties to resolve and agree on their parenting orders. These methods are popular because they are cheaper, quicker and the parties can negotiate or compromise. The family law courts have 'pre-action procedures' that must be followed first, and these include dispute resolution (there are some exceptions). Orders made under dispute resolution still have the binding of court-ordered agreements but without the costs and time. Sure, if you are working yourself up for a glamourous Custody Battle (tm) with your ex-spouse, it sounds like it has so much cache to the uniformed person, but the truth is, it is pretty expensive and it very unusual for Mr and Mrs Average to rock up to the Family Court with a posse of silks on day one of their separation.

True, there was some misprepresentation by the author when she failed to reveal the reason why 95-96 per cent of cases do not end up in the Family Court is because parties are almost forced into dispute resolution. But your analysis and your rape analogy, cornonthecorb, was just plain misguided and illogical.

From 1788 to 2010, 222 years have gone by and only very recently, a group of right-minded people has discovered that the convicts also have children and that these are our children and they need our acceptance, care and, yes, love.

It is since the same 1788 that, under the illusion that children belong only to parents, we of this nation, if Australia is a nation, forgot other children in need greater then the convicts’ children.

I am talking of the children of divorce who not only loose the love of both parents, busy fighting each other (as this very article and comments clearly evidences) but become weapons in their warfare and at times are right-out killed by a parent.

No Politician, no Judge, no Lawyer can stem this malaise. These professions have a stake in the persistence of human problems.

Children are above all units of our community entrusted to parents’ nurture in the short time of childhood.

The right-minded people of the community must intervene wherever a child is in danger and, at the expense of the parents, remove him/her to a safe place.

My summary
- if the case is as described then the man involved should never have unsupervised access to children (and having a friend sleep over is not supervised access).
- if that is true then the blackshirt's are way out of line in sticking up for the finding. Driven by their own issues rather than a real interest in the welfare of children or a fair go for other fathers.
- the author is playing a nasty gender game trying to push for a return to maternal bias which can also result in children being left with abusive parents. My guess is we won't be seeing articles from her attacking mothers groups for pushing for maternal bias because of single examples of risk to children from a woman with a bad history.
- the issues with shared care is not about which gender is better or worse, it's about arrangements which work best for all involved. Insisting on shared care when one parent is clearly a risk is bad but so to is a return to gender based determination of "childrens best interests"

R0bert
-

As a parent I have always been uncomfortable that the stereotype of the child abuser as male has ensured that women who sexually abuse the children in their charge are extremely unlikely to be reported by the victims, but even where that is done the child/student would not be believed.

What woman didn't hear of 'those' women teachers and coaches who always seemed to be present in the dressing room or were so 'unconscious' of their own bodies that they continually took opportunities to show their boobs or a bit more?

Moreover, where accusations of child abuse concerning women are reported in the media, as is slowly happening although it would never have been contemplated a decade or two ago and the odds are still against such reports, it is done in an understanding way - for the alleged perpetrator! Here is an example from today's online Courier Mail:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/lesbian-teacher-tricia-brown-accepts-blame-after-courting-students/story-e6freon6-1225846168490

I am repulsed by the anti-male stereotyping and the pro-female stereotyping apparent in superficially pro-child articles such as the subject article by Patricia Merkin. While I accept that the author believes in the correctness of her stance, it casts a long shadow over the overwhelming majority of the dads who love and care for their children and seeks to unfairly deny the contribution those fathers can and do make to the safety, care, wellness and happiness of their children.

If the well-being of children is the goal, fact and understanding should rate higher than myth and stereotypes.

I can't believe some father's groups are okay with this decision, some even defending the right to download child porn.

Some Father's Movements are getting so caught up with past injustices they can no longer see the wood for the trees. Replacing one injustice with a different type is not progress.

This is a long way from the days when fathers found it impossible to access their children even for a quick meal or a trip to the movies, other than every second weekend. One extreme to the other.

Publicising the inequities for fathers in the Family Court by supporting this decision and the nonsense that has ensued must be the parallel of the bra burning, man-hating feminists with chips on their shoulders.

Possible solution: let's stop calling parents mothers and fathers and refer to them (intechangeable) as Parent One and Parent Two. This way any court ruling and the facts of the case will be paramount without the burdens of gender bias and special interest groups.

The parents would have to stand behind large screens in Court so the Judge's decision is made without gender bias (using voice obscuring technology to disguise high and low pitch). The lawyers would have to refer to their client as My client or Parent One/Two as applicable.

If we remove gender from the equation we can get on with the business of ensuring children are in good hands and where sexual deviants cannot gain access to their children because of misplaced politically correct, guilt ridden social pressures to include fathers at any cost.

I for one was hoping that the new relationship centres and shared parenting arrangements would be fairer for men and bring the pendulum to the centre. However, if these changes mean moving to the other extreme what have we achieved? It is an unpopular stance but we should really be about doing the best for children - this decision really is all tip and no iceberg (to quote his formerness).

There appears to be some very OFF decisions made in the family law courts... no reasonable ,sane person would allow children to be placed in these dangerous situations so I ask, what motivation do these judges have in placing children with pedophiles/sociopaths...is it because there is a personality type within the judicial system that seems to identify with these people? Who is supervising the family law decisions and the personality profiles of some of these judges.....More and more women and childrens rights are being eroded by the most bizzare and cruel decisions that a reasonable and sane person would view as saddistic and immoral... More laws misinterperated to allow sociopaths and control freaks to keep their compaigns of terror ongoing and their families spiralling into chaos.There has to be a better system than the legal system to deal with Families in conflict than lawyers who have only one priority ..CASH and lots of it so keep the conflict on going to the financial ruin of both parties... Sociopaths inc.(some fathers rights groups)so they can they can maximize control over more than their own x wives and and keep vicious conflict never ending and their child support non existant and laws that will jail women for trying to protect their children from all of this by judges who act irresponsibly for what ever their real motivation may be.

OK, guys, let's adopt feminist tactics here.

FACT: Children are TEN (10) times more likely to be abused or neglected when sharing a household with mum's new boyfriend.

Therefore, any mother that co-habits with another man should automatically be considered an unfit parent and custody transferred to the father (strictly in the best interests of the child, of course).

This is actually a more defensible position then the claim that some fathers are pedophiles therefore there should be no presumption of shared parenting.

Spread the word guys. A woman sharing a house with a guy who is not the father of her children is a BAD ABUSIVE EVIL parent. :-)

Why are many posters defending something which is not said or implied.

If I read an article about a mob of deadbeat mothers who are heroin addicted during pregancy and birth and inflict awful pain on their newborn child, am I immediately going to think all women are deadbeats?

Give people credit for being thinking and rational human beings.

This new male victimology is unattractive. Advocacy for parental rights is understandable, but advocating for the rights of fathers even those who are undesirable is counterproductive to the cause and plainly a disaster for any children being used as pawns in this ridiculous game.

Stev
Yes a child living with mum's new boyfriend should not live with the mother if the boyfriend has been downloading child porn or inappropriately touching children.

I am not sure of your point?

How would you feel as a father if your daughter or son was allowed to visit with their mother in a house where the defacto boyfriend had been told by a Judge he could have the children there as long as the door was locked and someone else in the house.

Most fathers, brothers, Grandfathers and uncles would be rightly outraged. Why is a woman's outrage viewed as automatically suspicious or any different?

A very selective little editorial, distinguished more so by the statistics it leaves out.

And given the little tyrade about no bias in the Court system against fathers/in support of mothers, the writer may want to explain this recent Criminal court judgment from Brisbane, reflcetive of the attitudes of Courts to women across the board.

Mum jailed for sexually abusing child has sentence suspended by Court

http://blog.fathers4equality-australia.org/equalparenting/FiDBlog.nsf/dx/mum-jailed-for-sexually-abusing-son-freed-by-court

## I am sure this is just another Court judgment that you and your group will sweep under the carpet, as you have done about the statistics from the Department of Child Safety that hightight single mother homes as having the highest risk of child abuse, by a fair degree.

pelican

To test what is being put forward by way of controls, what would you do with Tricia Brown (see link above) if she were interested in having children? Should her rights to motherhood, to adopt or to take a surrogate child be curtailed? What if she were to take a partner who has already got a child?

Similar problems with people who have (say) drug records.

Not taking any side here just wondering what better arrangement there could be apart from your earlier idea of not disclosing gender of the parents in the Family Court and then relying on the judge to do the best possible on the evidence available.

Ultimately it comes down to risk management not risk avoidance, otherwise no parent and certainly not the State (from its record in Australia) could have the custody of a child.

Whichever way though, gender should be removed from the equation.

Ashvani: The remainder of her court sentence was suspended; she has been in gaol since August last year.

The article doesn't say anything about whether she has care of her son; it's unlikely that the child is now in her care.

The abuse is revolting. I don't think she should have been released after just 6 months gaol and I don't think she should have care of any child. Supervised day visits IF the child (assuming he is old enough) agrees to it, at the most.

Presumably she would be on the child sex offender registry and undergoing sex offender treatment.

Cornflower
My thoughts on that case mirror those of Pynchme. It would be highly unlikely that Tricia Brown would ever be able to adopt or surrogate a child as her conviction would preclude her - rightly so. As far as getting pregnant that is unfortunately in the lap of the Gods, more's the pity.

I am unaware whether previous drug use would preclude a person from adopting.

There is no question that gender should be taken out of the equation in Family Law.

These debates always get into the tit for tat - you show me a case where a man is the perpetrator and I will show you a woman.

What is the purpose, when the most important aspect is ignored for sake of point scoring.

It is simply some mothers are bad some fathers are bad. We all agree on the bleedin' obvious.

Let's now move on to how we can protect kids from abuse and neglect, that's what we should be about. And if it means highlighting cases that on the face of it appear to deny those protections to children then they should be exposed.

Stev,
The author referred to the Family Court statistics that of all the couples that separate in Au, only 5-6% end up in the Family Court.
So your argument that "This opinion is full of anecdotes, anecdotes, and more anecdotes" immediately falls.
The argument that it's a "cherry pick[ing]" exercise also fails because the research findings that cases coming before the Family Court comprise cases of child abuse that is "real, serious and severe" means that this case is not a cherry pick but exemplary of the cases that the Family Court has to adjudicate.
You also stated that, “In conclusion, the author proposes circumscribing the presumption of shared parenting when it is clear that child sexual abuse is a) a rare occurrence (0.18% per year), and 2) is *less* likely to be initiated by a biological parent than a step-parent or mum's live-in boyfriend.”
You are using faulty logic because the study you cited (The Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect conducted by the US Department of Health and Human Services ) does not pertain to the incidents of child abuse in cases coming before the Family Court! You’re the one that has made the leap. For a study into the relevant field, try Trocme, Bala, False allegations of abuse and neglect when parents separate, Child Abuse & Neglect, Volume 29, Issue 12, December 2005, Pages 1333-1345. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7N-4HK04KV-5&_user=79777&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1269986137&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000006418&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=79777&md5=faabfcb641745660f2550e6edd38dae3
Rather than reframing the issue as “the author proposes circumscribing the presumption of shared parenting when it is clear that child sexual abuse is a) a rare occurrence (0.18% per year), and 2) is *less* likely to be initiated by a biological parent than a step-parent or mum's live-in boyfriend,” empirically and logically the issue is that author proposes circumscribing the presumption of shared parenting in the Family Court because it is clear that its core business is child sexual abuse that is real, serious and severe.

Response to Stev; Posted Friday, 26 March 2010 7:33:03 P

In the first paragraph of my comment, I used the word convicts instead of people in prison. I apologize.

It may well do you good in the court to actually prove you are the father of the child. In the mothers case there is no doubt. 40% of children have non genetic kids in the family.

These sorts of articles do nothing to help gender bias issues in the family court arguments at all. Just as anti-female articles produced by militant fathers groups don't help either.

There is no argument when the statistics show us that women are just as likely to neglect or physically abuse children as men, or that men are far more likely to sexually abuse children.

What should be happening in the family courts with the few couples that end up there, is an unbiased ruling by the judges about what custody arrangements should be made for the particular circumstances of the children in that particular case.

There should never have been a blanket decision to allow 50/50 custody of children as a starting point in every case.
That is just asking for trouble for children, and that is a tragedy.

Happy,

You may want to read this.

"The Family Court judge found Bill's ex-wife to be violent, untruthful, lacking moral values and responsible for the psychological and emotional abuse of her children - but still gave her custody of the two girls, now aged 9 and 11, because they had become estranged from their father."

http://www.news.com.au/national/sex-abuse-accused-dad-fights-back/story-e6frfkvr-1225822899736

Now fighting the case cost the man "his job, his home and about $450,000 in lost income and legal costs."

This may explain why so few men go to the Family Court.

Such situations would be known by the author, but not mentioned by the author, and this does bring into question how this university trained author has been able to provide such a bigoted and prejuiced view of an issue.

The idea that universities help to broaden the mind is as circumspect as a decision by the Family Court.

Also, while we often hear of "the best interests of the child" (cough/splutter), where is the reasearch that shows that the majority of children are happy with the decisions made by the Family Court.

No such research exists I do believe, (but why spoil a good thing for male hating feminists and the parasitic money making solicitors that actually run the Family Law system).

vanna
The point you are missing is that it should be about the best interests of the children unpopular that ideal is in the modern day.

Whether or not the Family Court makes the best decisions is what this debate is about.

Do you really think that every woman is a male hating feminist? If you do then your contribution probably won't help much in ensuring fairer decisions are made into the future.

With your overt gender bias and generalisation, thank goodness you are not a Family Court Judge!

“A very selective little editorial, distinguished more so by the statistics it leaves out.”
Posted by Ashvani, Saturday, 27 March 2010 12:39:03 PM

Certainly this piece leaves out the ‘statistics’ so enamored by the father’s rights groupies; “statistics” used by father’s rights groupies that were exposed by Dr. Flood as containing;
• “Dodgy methods and bogus statistics”
• “simplistic claims”
• “broader problem with the rhetoric about fatherlessness”
• “flawed methodology”
• “public statements by some fathers’ advocates”
• “confusion of correlation and causation”,
• “highly selective use of research evidence.”

p. 21, Fatherhood and Fatherlessness, M. Flood 2003.

No wonder he’s targeted by father’s rights zealots. They want to shoot the messenger for not bringing their desired version of the message.

If Ashvani wants to point to the so-called gender bias against men in the criminal court, please explain the following-

“The mother of a seven-year-old girl who died of starvation has been found guilty of her murder by a NSW Supreme Court jury.
The same jury found the child's father guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter after a week of deliberations.”
http://www.theage.com.au/national/starved-girl-parents-found-guilty-20090623-cuy7.html
“The child's father blamed the mother for the death, saying she was solely responsible for the seven-year-old's care.

Ashvani, you have no case.

Here is the court report of the case:

http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/resources/file/ebfeb74aa88d192/2010_FamCA_35.pdf

A range of information from various sources has been compiled there.

Regarding the “statistics from the Department of Child Safety that highlight single mother homes as having the highest risk of child abuse…” and other such research. A study in the UK was used by a prominent Qld mens rights group to support their contention that women were the biggest abusers of children:

http://forum.dadsontheair.com/viewtopic.php?t=10822&sid=ec5f85a12c6b0aa26ef852189b8cd356

When asked the researchers stated:

“However, our study never claimed or attempted to prove that 'mothers are a greater danger to children'. In considering these findings about physical treatment at the hands of mothers and fathers we would make the following points:
o These figures also need to be located in the context that 10% of sample had never lived with a father one fifth of the sample had spent at least part of their childhood and 13% most of their childhood in a lone parent family (predominantly headed by a mother) (Cawson, 2002, p. 9 and 25).
o Featherstone makes the following point in relation to the above findings (i.e. 49% mothers, 40% fathers involved in violent treatment): ‘These figures need to be located in the context of the gender division of labour in relation to child care. Women are much more likely to be involved in the day to day care of children than men, so it would appear that given men’s relative lack of involvement in such care, the figure of 40 per cent is high and replicates similar findings (Featherstone, 1996 cited in Featherstone and Evans, 2004, p. 28).

Hence Dr. Flood's analysis that fathers rights campaigners used "highly selective use of research evidence".

He rests his case.

vanna,
The unique notion that a father claims that "he didn't do it" is not exactly new.

Do you really believe that the judicial system and evidence principles
are overturned merely with lies?

He said, "The Family Court have cut me off from my children effectively because of false evidence brought by my wife," Bill said.

In a court where a child porn downloading and child porn reproducing father stills gets to have the children overnight, it's gotta be pretty strong 'beyond reasonable doubt' level type evidence to achieve-
"The result was my kids were taken away from me."

Think about it.

Let's wait and see how the case unfolds before predicting the outcome and how it supposedly supports your particular agenda.

Oh, boy, where to start...

Let's start with happy who states that "the author proposes circumscribing the presumption of shared parenting in the Family Court because it is clear that its core business is child sexual abuse that is real, serious and severe"

The study that you cite by Trocme and Bala actually reports that almost 50% of abuse allegations in child custody cases in Canada are "unsubstantiated" with social workers deciding that perhaps only 12% were "intentionally false". The authors also report that up to 60% of allegations in the US are unsubstantiated. So, happy, let's agree that at least half the cases are not real.

While it took time to access the journal article on abuse, the study by Brown et al (2000) actually states that "the proportion of child abuse cases was only 5% of the total children’s matters cases presented to the court in any 1 year." These statistics are consistent with the low levels of child sexual abuse by biological parents reported in NIS4.

The authors also argue that 9% of these cases were false - quite close to the 12% reported by Trocme and Bala. Further conclusions in the paper were drawn from a single source - an unpublished doctoral thesis by Sheehan on magistrate's decisions for child protection - hardly an accessible peer reviewed outlet.

Re:happy's lengthy argument on relative rates of abuse
If children are 10 times more likely to suffer abuse in homes occupied by the mum's new partner then the mother is guilty of child endangerment - regardless of whether she actually initiates the abuse or neglect in the home or not. This is simply not in the best interests of the child.

To pelican (and others) who are "not sure of my point".

Most reasonable people on here believe that abusive parents should not be given custodial rights to children when they may subsequently abuse them. *I also support this position.*

The NIS4 results suggest that sexual abuse by biological parents occurs at a rate of 5 cases per 10,000 children per year. Over a 20 year childhood, this represents a risk of 1 chance in a 100 of a child being abused by a biological parent (80% of the time by fathers, 20% by mothers). Fathers are four times more likely to sexually abuse a child, but 99% of all fathers DO NOT abuse their offspring. At the extreme, if we gave sole custody of all children only to mothers, we would certainly reduce sexual abuse rates - some 1600 children in Australia would escape being abused by their fathers every year (although 400 would still be sexually abused by their mothers). HOWEVER, 3.96 MILLION children would have no meaningful contact with their fathers.

Happy,
Which case below is a university trained feminist more likely to mention.

“Mother remains in custody charged with murdering only child”
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/mother-remains-in-custody-charged-with-murdering-only-child/story-e6frf7l6-1225843986946

“Man charged with throwing 4-year-old daughter off bridge in Australia”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/29/australia

I have never once known a university trained feminist to ever once say a single positive word about men or fathers, and no wonder this university trained author has a bigoted and prejudiced view of fathers.

If you would like some information on child abuse, (and statistics relating to such), contact the “QLD Commission for Children and Young People”

http://www.ccypcg.qld.gov.au/index.html

They have the statistics relating to child abuse that no university trained feminist, (or the feminist friend Michael Flood) will ever mention.

Suzeonline makes some excellent points but then states that, "There should never have been a blanket decision to allow 50/50 custody of children as a starting point in every case. That is just asking for trouble for children, and that is a tragedy."

Here is the issue. The presumption doesn't just affect cases at trial, it also affects how cases settle before trial. Happy would have us believe that only 5% of custody cases go to trial and all involve "real" cases of serious abuse and that therefore a presumption of shared custody is inappropriate.

We have already seen that at least half of these allegations that go to trial are NOT real. However, the 95% of cases that settle often do so because of established legal precedent. If most cases award custody to the mother (in the absence of tens of thousands of dollars of litigation) then most settlements will determine custody in that direction. If most cases award shared parenting then most settlements will err in that direction.

This is why retaining the presumption of shared parenting is so important. The vast majority of fathers (and mothers) are NOT abusers. Setting a standard that deviates from shared parenting denies millions of innocent children meaningful contact with a non-custodial parent (mostly at this time their fathers).

Men's groups argue that the harm from this far outweighs the benefit of protecting a tiny minority from abuse. Sadly, in fact, they are not even being more protected when separated from their fathers. Children are far more likely to be abused when co-habiting with non-biological persons.

No system is perfect. There will always be anecdotal cases of the "one that got away". Judging fitness for shared parenting will fail in some cases as will awarding sole custody to an unfit parent who directly abuses or allows others to abuse a child. Excluding a large number of perfectly good parents from their children's lives in the pursuit of zero mistakes is not only wrong-headed but plain wrong.

Pelican,

The Family Court makes decisions about a child, but will not make any subsequent visits to see if the child is being well looked after.

This has now lead to very high levels of child abuse in single parent families, mainly in the form of child neglect.

By not making subsequent visits to see if the child is being properly looked after, the Family Court is actually operating well outside of Risk Management legislation.

As an allegory, if a doctor makes a decision about a patient, but never checks the patient to see if their decision were correct, then the doctor could be charged, because they had not exercised sufficient duty of care.

So in effect, most of the decisions previously made by the Family Court could be declared null and void, because the Family Court has been operating outside of Risk Management legislation since the time the Family Court was first formed.

"The Family Court judge found Bill's ex-wife to be violent, untruthful, lacking moral values and responsible for the psychological and emotional abuse of her children - but still gave her custody of the two girls, now aged 9 and 11, because they had become estranged from their father."

That is why I love OLO. You get the complete story.

Pelican

"The point you are missing is that it should be about the best interests of the children unpopular that ideal is in the modern day."

It sounds very proper, but the best interests of the child effectively means the interests of the parent with most custody, generally the mother. Once they get the kids (often by bogus DV or child abuse claims), they can act however they want, without any consequence, because punishing her might disadvantage the kids.

Happy

"He rests his case" without having proved anything. The points that he made do nothing to weaken the case made by father's groups.

No-one here is unconcerned by the possibility that children will be abused. Many men just get upset by the assumption that protecting kids means keeping them from their fathers. Hence the quoting of statistics that prove otherwise.

Many people are hardline on protecting kids for as long as it appears that men will pay most of the cost. Once men start talking about how we could look at the risks of having kids with single mums and stepdads, it is amazing how quickly this hardline stance seems to disappear.

It's painfully obvious that the Family Court system is sadly out of touch with reality. Within itself, it is a reflection of political correctness. Accountable to nobody and a total reactionary force that seems to think it knows all about "the best interest of the child". In reality it cares not a jot about the children it effortlessly strips of loving fathers. I would go as far as to suggest that it is a dishonest and biased organisation which is run by misinformed individuals who at one stage or another were all family court lawyers or barristers. They rise up to their own level of incompetence. In fact, there is one well known magistrate who drinks in the local hotels around by the Family Court and regularly falls off the stool intoxicated beyond help. If this behaviour is meant as an example to the rest of society, then god help us all!

Stev <" Setting a standard that deviates from shared parenting denies millions of innocent children meaningful contact with a non-custodial parent (mostly at this time their fathers)."

I wasn't suggesting the Family Court should 'deviate' from shared parenting Stev. I was suggesting that it should not start with a 50/50 shared custody arrangement as a sort of prerequisite for the kids of warring parents. Each case should be handled on it's own merit.

Were there really 'millions' of kids who were denied meaningful contact with their Fathers after marital breakdowns before the equal custody laws were brought in? I don't think so.

Did we have less tragedies concerning the parents and children affected by family court decisions after the new laws came in? I don't think so.

The truth is that most families work out their own arrangements for the good of their children. Those that called in the lawyers and courts were in the minority, and the children of those warring parents were never going to do it easy, no matter what the courts said.

I am not against men or fathers at all, as I know some wonderful men and fathers.
At the end of the day, if men are good to their children and love them unconditionally, no matter what their mothers say or do, these kids will grow up one day and think for themselves and love their fathers.

I have been a psychiatric case worker for almost 25yrs,taking hundreds of case histories and counselling acute as well as chronic mental health cases,and I can tell you that the stats in ref to abuse and perpetrators in these comments comes from very narrow and
misleading data. The main perpetrators of sexual,physical and emotional abuse comes from the immediate family group.The women report almost universally that their immediate male relatives have been the offenders and that only a few of these ever told any one about it,so none of these women will ever appear on you data ,Stev!
Of the men ,the majority were subjected to abuse from other men ...teachers,priests, fathers, uncles and yes one even said his sister and again they were never reported, try getting your stats from groups who look after the fallout from these abusers...1 in 3 women/girls will be sexually abused in their life time and most in their childhood and the stats are less for men/boys but climbing higher year by year...so start quoting the real facts and not just the self serving ones .

samiam:"my anecdote's better than your statistics anyday, so there"

Thus neatly encapsulating the problem with this article and with the discussion about shared care.

samiam: My work history with clients (mostly male in one of my client groups) reflects exactly the same.

<"Male victims are increasingly likely to be represented among sexual assault survivors, who as adults feel more able to disclose incidents that occurred to them as children (Watkins and Bentovim 2000). Approximately 70 per cent of the male victims represented in the 1992 national survey were assaulted prior to the age of 17, most commonly by family members or other adult male acquaintances (Easteal 1994). Almost half (47.4 per cent) of the male respondents had, prior to the survey, never disclosed their abuse to anyone (Easteal 1994).">

http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/pubs/briefing/b1.html

More anecdotes:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/02/1051382093363.html

I'm wondering if, as Cornflower's link says, the father has spent 450,000 dollars in the courts, how much the mother has spent. Legal Aid (if she ever had it) has limits.

I'd like to ask people:

If a few years from now it comes out that one of these children has been sexually abused, what should this mother have done to protect her daughter ?

We all seem to agree on the essentials as it is a no-brainer.

The real issue is how to decipher the truths from the lies that make it difficult to make decisions on access and custody. Not an easy ask for any Judge let alone anyone else involved.

While most of us acknowledge that shared parenting is not always suitable for all children or families, it should be the starting point or premise of any discussion.

The best interests for children is positive interaction with both parents but where this is not possible, some harsh decisions may have to be made.

Should there be harsher penalties for false reporting of sexual abuse (or any abuse) if it can be proven? That is something worth thinking about but on the downside may prevent legitimate reportings if the accuser or victim feels they may not be believed.

It is all very difficult with many conflicting risks no matter which way you look at it.

The odds of a child false reporting are slim to none.

For example, in the following study, investigators had 102 abuse incidents concerning 10 children on tapes produced by the abuser, who was known or related to all the children on the tapes.

No matter what interview technique was used all the children either denied or minimized and none made false claims.

http://www.kidsindistress.org.au/files/Gold%20Standard,%20Limited%20disclosures%20of%20sexual%20abuse%20in%20children%20experience%20documented.pdf

Mothers are already discouraged from stating any concerns about the child being at risk for sexual assault. In some cases care has immediately been granted to the other parent. So I am wondering how parents cope - what can one do to protect their child?

Pynchme,
"Mothers are already discouraged from stating any concerns about the child being at risk for sexual assault."

What a load of rubish. Women are routinely told by solicitors to state that they have been abused so as to win the court case and get the money.

What can be done to reduce child sex abuse or any child abuse?

Immediately reduce the number of de facto relationships and the number of children born outside of marriage, and grant more shared parenting.

If there is to be a single parent, it is best that it is the father, as data shows that childr4en being looked after by their natural father are less likely to suffer neglect, financial poverty or sexual abuse.

I think that even a femenist trained university academic would have difficulty refuting that the natural father is the least likely male to carry out sexual abuse of his children.

Vanna: <"Women are routinely told by solicitors to state that they have been abused so as to win the court case and get the money.">

Do you have any evidence of that?

Stats in a legitimate study would be welcome as well as anecdotal.

Vanna < " What can be done to reduce child sex abuse or any child abuse? Immediately reduce the number of de facto relationships and the number of children born outside of marriage, and grant more shared parenting."

Gee Vanna, how would you work out the above situations?
Are you suggesting that once a marital relationship has broken down that both the parents are doomed to live alone until the kids leave home then? What a lonely life you are condemning them to!

Are you suggesting that married step-parents abuse kids less than defacto step-parents? Where is the proof of this?

I see you are an advocate of marriage?
Do you think the institution of marriage protects children?

In Ireland, where contraception, abortion and divorce was illegal until recently, the family home was the place where most children were sexually abused by far (as well as Catholic Priests!).

There weren't many defacto relationships in that country, but sexual abuse was at least as common as it is here.

Paedophiles will access children any way and anywhere they can

Pynchme,
Its easy.

Go to any woman who has been to a family law solicitor, and ask them if they were asked by their solicitor if they had been abused.

What? Every one of them.

Also, go to any man who has been to a family law solicitor, and ask them if they were asked by their solicitor if they had been abused.

What? Hardly any of them.

Once the claim by the woman of abuse by the man is in place, the man may have to attend up to 71 court cases, and lose up to $450,000, and lose his job and lose his house to defend himself against the claims of abuse.

Most men don’t want to lose that much, so they end up paying the child support, see the children every second weekend, and give the woman between 60% and 80% of assets.

Of course the solicitors take their cut.

Its been a good scam, but I think it is now coming to an end, with the Family Law court being more compelled to properly investigate allegations of abuse. The next step should be jail sentences for those making false allegations, carrying out perjury and wasting taxpayer money.

I think a lot of allegations of abuse being made by women will then cease.

The step after that should be getting the Family Law court to carry out Risk Management legislation, and visit the children to see if they are being properly looked after, and any decisions made by the Family Court have not actually put the children at risk.

This is something the Family Law court has yet to do.

Suzononline,
Why not ask the children what they would prefer. The feminist system where the children have to live with “mummy's new boyfriend” every 6 months, or living with their natural father.

Benk, you said (Saturday, 27 March 2010 9:30:24 PM)“Many men just get upset by the assumption that protecting kids means keeping them from their fathers.”

The Family Court is a court where it has been found that the child abuse is real, serious and severe (Brown et al, 2000).
Of course men who are accused in the Family Court will be upset. For that matter, women who are accused of child abuse will also be upset, regardless of whether they did it or not. It should come as no surprise that a father or mother who is accused of child abuse in the Family Court is not going to admit that ‘he or she didn't do it.’ The fact that they claim that they didn’t do it is no measure of its truth.
Empirically the results of one of the biggest study done into the question of actual true and false allegations in the context of family law proceedings are that:
“Results of this analysis show that neglect is the most common form of intentionally fabricated maltreatment, while anonymous reporters and non-custodial parents (usually fathers) most frequently prompt intentionally false reports. Of the intentionally false allegations of maltreatment tracked by the CIS-98, custodial parents (usually mothers) and victimized children were least likely to fabricate reports of abuse or neglect.”
Trocme N, Bala N, ‘False allegations of abuse and neglect when parents separate’ Child Abuse and Neglect, (2005) Vol. 29, at p. 1333.
Therefore, in Family Court, where it is more likely that non-custodial fathers are the ones most responsible for making the bulk of the false allegations of child abuse, and where custodial mothers and their children are more likely to be making true allegations of child abuse, the law should reflect the empirical findings and be amended to remove shared responsibility (there is no actual presumption of shared care) as the presumption. Protection of the children against false denials should be the priority.
That's not based on assumptions. It's based on evidence.

Pelican, kudos on your post, I totally agree that shared parenting is a no-brainer that should be the starting point or premise of custody decisions because it is in the best interests for children to have positive interaction with both parents. In some cases, harsh decisions will have to be made as you say. Reasonable people agree on these points as would most father's rights advocates.

Unfortunately, the radical feminists on this forum, appear to totally disagree with you. According to samiam and pynchme, we have an EPIDEMIC of unreported sexual abuse going on in families (as high as 1 in 3 girls), almost exclusively perpetrated by male family members and subject to a cone of silence. The only obvious course is to remove all males from contact with children. To which I say, BOLLOCKS!

P.S. It's always intrigued me that psychiatric workers often need more clinical help than their patients.

vanna/HRS/Timkins/Timithy et al: << Why not ask the children what they would prefer. >>

In the case that is the focus of the article, the children were asked and the Family Court overruled their wishes in favour of the father, who had been convicted of poseessing and producing child porn, and who had been found to have inappropriately invited one of his daughters into his bed, where he "badgered" her.

Clearly, the Family Court got it wrong in this case. It seems to me that the question is whether it did so because of political pressure to go easier on fathers, despite proven capacity for sexual abuse of children.

From what I understand, in a court, judgements are at least theortically suppose to be based on the evidence presented.

There is some difficulty with this, in that not all the information/ details are presented to the court.

This is partly because parties involved do not have all the details. Secondly some claims can create a smoke screen that will hide other details.

CJMorgan:"the children were asked and the Family Court overruled their wishes"

No, it didn't. The evidence was that the children had had a strong relationship with their father, which the Court deemed should continue.

I am pleased to read so many comments supporting fathers rights and condemning the inhumane treatment they receive through the family court system. The whole family court system as far as I am concerned can go to hell!

@ happy (aka Patricia), Sunday, 28 March 2010 7:06:17 PM

"where it is more likely that non-custodial fathers are the ones most responsible for making the bulk of the false allegations of child abuse, and where custodial mothers and their children are more likely to be making true allegations of child abuse, the law should reflect the empirical findings and be amended to remove shared responsibility"

Way to completely ignore my post of Saturday, 27 March 2010 8:27:09 PM and continue to misrepresent the findings of Trocme, Bala, and Brown as somehow supportive of an epidemic of child abuse.

"Way to completely ignore my post of Saturday, 27 March 2010 8:27:09 PM and continue to misrepresent the findings of Trocme, Bala, and Brown as somehow supportive of an epidemic of child abuse."

I didn't say their findings support "an epidemic of child abuse."

I said their findings show that
a) child abuse in the Family Court is "real, serious and severe" (Brown et al, 2000)and the core of the Family Court's business is dealing with these cases;

and

the most likely parent to make a deliberately false allegation of child abuse in Family Court was an anonymous reporter and a non-custodial parent;

the most likely person to make a true allegation of child abuse in the Family Court was a custodial mother and her children.

They didn't look into child abuse in general.

The child didn't want to stay overnight or spend time alone with him.

She'told a number of adults: mother, police and counsellors. I wonder how many adults does this child have to express her wishes to before her need to feel safe take precedence over her father's demands.

From the court report:

6. In the interview with me [A] did not volunteer any facts about the
incident to us. She indicated that she loves her father and does not want to upset him, but she was not comfortable staying at her father’s house at night, particularly on her own. She stated that she was happy with the current situation and her wish was that it remains as it was.
7. When I asked her if she would like to talk about the thing that happened to her with her father she got extremely distressed.
8. She had her teddy bear with her and she started feeding lollies to him furiously. She was very anxious and implored us “please don’t tell
Dad”. “Don’t tell anybody anything”.
9. She indicated that she did not want to spend time alone with her father. We asked her why she didn’t and she said “because of what I told the police”. “I do not like it. It makes me feel weird”. “I don’t want to be alone with him”. She kept repeating “please don’t tell Dad”. (p.16)and p. 24.

"I am satisfied that the father invited A into his bed and that A felt
uncomfortable and that the father demonstrated affection towards her, in a way which was in all the circumstances inappropriate for a child of that age and in those circumstances. Accordingly I am satisfied there needs to be a measure of protection put in place for these children in terms of their time with the father". (p.19)

Father is described as manipulative, disingenuous, opportunistic, poor self control". (p.23)

The children love their father. If he loved them as much h would respect their need to feel safe and limit himself to day visits with someone else around.

http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/resources/file/ebfeb74aa88d192/2010_FamCA_35.pdf

Patricia (happy), your argument is a non sequitur.

Some non-custodial fathers make false allegations of abuse therefore we should dispense with a presumption of shared parenting in ALL custody cases.

How on earth does one follow from the other? (Not to mention that non-custodial implies custody has already been adjudicated).

Similarly, a very small proportion of fathers are pedophiles therefore we should dispense with a presumption of shared parenting in ALL cases. Once again, how does one follow from the other?

Please enlighten me if I am misrepresenting your positions in any way.

Some of your supporters even seem to suggest that we should dispense with all male involvement with children because the risk of abuse is so high. Hard to imagine how the human race possibly managed to survive for so long if this is the natural state of affairs.

Antiseptic, I was responding to vanna et al's unusually astute assertion that children should have a say in these matters. Clearly, in this case at least one of the children's obvious reluctance to spend time overnight with her father was overridden by the Court. Many thanks to Pynchme for providing the relevant evidence.

So you're wrong.

If there's a pendulum effect operating here, I think it's swung too far the other way - unless this case is the aberration I hope it is.

Vanna<" Why not ask the children what they would prefer. The feminist system where the children have to live with “mummy's new boyfriend” every 6 months, or living with their natural father."

Will we also ask the children if they would like to live with mummy, or with "Daddy's new girlfriend" every 6 months? The "wicked stepmother has always had a rather nasty history hasn't she Vanna?
Or is 'Daddy" going to stay celibate and alone for the rest of his days?

CJ, I agree that Antiseptic was wrong in his assertion that in this case the children were to spend time with their Father because they a previous strong relationship with them.

After reading the court transcripts provided by Pynchme, I cannot believe that any learned person would come to that conclusion in this case.

It is gender-based correctness gone mad if the courts are agreeing to Fathers, who are KNOWN to frighten or abuse their children, to having any overnight, unsupervised access to those children.

I have never said that children of MOST broken families shouldn't spend equal time with both parents, because it is in the emotional interests of children to know and love both their parents.

However, it should be considered the responsibility of the Family Courts to ensure children are safe with whomever they live with- including their Mothers.

Happy,

Your “mothers and their children” is a complete give away.

So it does have more to do with the mothers than it has to do with the children. The children are “their children” to help justify the mother’s rather minimal existence, and the father is excluded.

I think it stems from the fact that so many women never invent anything, or build anything, or really do anything, so they have children to help justify their existence and make then feel important.

It is also interesting that so many men are regarded as being abusive and unsuitable, but they are regarded as being very suitable to earn money, and then to pay that money to a women. (ie. Men are no good, but the money they earn is good, particularly if it is going to a woman).

Suzanonline
Some time ago the Family Court undertook a survey of the children effected by their decisions, and found that the vast majority wanted to spend more time with their natural father. It was similar to children brought into this world through IVF that still want to know their natural father.

Feminism cannot overcome nature.

CJMorgan:"the children were asked and the Family Court overruled their wishes"

Suzeonline:"I agree that Antiseptic was wrong in his assertion that in this case the children were to spend time with their Father because they a previous strong relationship with them."

From the Reasons for Judgement:"150. The children have a good relationship with each of their parents. The father has been significantly involved with the children all of their lives and is close to them. The same is the position with the mother. Dr R’s evidence makes that clear.
151. Having regard to all of the above I am satisfied that it is important that the children have a meaningful relationship with both parents. The children have a close bond with their parents and love them and enjoy their time with them."

and
"157. There will be a detrimental effect on the relationship of the children and their father by virtue of this decision. However, their relationship with their father is good. He has been significantly involved in their lives and that relationship will be able to continue."

It can't get any clearer than the Judge's own words, no matter how much you may not like them. Whether this was specifically desired by the kids at the time is a moot point: we don't routinely allow children of that age to make binding decisions about anything substantial. Normal people don't, anyway.

Furthermore, the psychologists stated that this relationship was in existence in their evidence and recommended the relationship be maintained.

From the Reasons for Judgement:"M worries about her father being lonely and alone." Hardly a sign of a child who doesn't want anything to do with her father, is it?

As well, the girls were distressed about Dad finding out what they had said, rather than about what he had allegedly done. Let's not forget this was all allegation, not hard evidence apart from the porn stuff, which was hardly extreme, according to the reports. That reluctance may just as well indicate a desire by the girls not to hurt Dad's feelings.

There`s a type of person ,a narcissistic stand over bully that when confronted with the truth or made accountable for their actions, starts to deny,fabricate minimize,call names, blame others, use blackmail and other forms of emotional abuse to brow beat anyone who has the audacity to question their importance..Sound familiar..Anger management groups can help but you need at least some insight into your behaviour and a willingness to change..Mostly these deluded ,self righteous misogynists join right wing,redneck,emotionally bankrupt mens right groups so they can be coached in false accusations, denial,how to continue to have control over their x spouse ,to use the children as weapons,how to manipulate the family law system ,avoid paying child support and all the while enjoy the support of other fractured bro`s in the fight to make the bitch pay...sounds very familiar doesn`t it

Happy

"Therefore, in Family Court, where it is more likely that non-custodial fathers are the ones most responsible for making the bulk of the false allegations of child abuse, and where custodial mothers and their children are more likely to be making true allegations of child abuse"

False allegations aren't the problem, real child abuse is the problem. Less child abuse happens when children are around dad than around step dad.

"The law should reflect the empirical findings and be amended to remove shared responsibility (there is no actual presumption of shared care) as the presumption."

No. The "empirical findings" indicate that children are safer with their natural father than with their mother and her new partner, yet this whole debate is being seen as fathers vs as those who want to protect kids. Shared parenting makes kids safer. Returning to the old system leaves kids much more vulnerable.

"Protection of the children against false denials should be the priority."

Not protecting them from abuse...what a strange priority.

Anti

What is less extreme child porn?

Samiam ~ a very accurate and concise description. It fits exactly with the diagnostic criteria for Anti-Social Personality Disorder (sociopath/psychopath) which is apparent in many males who pursue their case in Family Courts as a means of further harrassing and abusing their former partners. They are also highly manipulative (playing the victim) and cunningly deceptive and with frightening frequency are able to deceive and manipulate the gullible lawyers, Children's Reporters, and Judges. They are narcissistic and obsessed with the power in control of money, which is why they pursue all means of evading child maintenance payments. Rarely are they sent for psychiatric diagnosis. APD/Sociopathy is a permanent and untreatable condition and therefore Anger Management Courses are absolutely futile. Such individuals are usaully also engaged in criminal activities (a large proportion of the prison population have such conditions but many more are able to escape detection), street violence, car hooning, drug dealing etc etc. In fact most events which are anti-social in their nature.
What is needed is a National Register of those with APD Disorder as they are increasingly disrupting and harming our society, as well as destroying the lives of their former partners and children.
Failure to pay child maintenance is one of the worst kinds of child abuse and often results in children suffering neglect (inadequacy of income) but of course such neglect is then blamed on the mother if she has residency of the children. Failure to pay child maintenance should automatically exclude any parent from bringing Court Proceedings for residency or contact as it immediately indicates that parent is abusing the child.

benk:"What is less extreme child porn?"

From the Reasons for Judgement:

"17. The facts to which the father admitted a plea of guilty to involved a video tape which the father had filmed from web pages. The video tape was a recording of various young girls, aged approximately 10 to 14 years, some were naked and some were in bikinis, which the father had downloaded from child pornographic web sites."

I have a couple of books by David Hamilton, which I inherited from my mother. She thought the nude photography of the young girls who were Hamilton's subjects was very beautiful and often spoke of Hamilton in glowing terms. Hamilton's books were not hidden away, but displayed in the lounge room.

I suspect that if a police officer with an axe to grind wanted to, he could claim that I have child pornography in my possession. He may well be right, given that pictures of young girls in bikinis can now be regarded that way. Runaway Wowserism has taken hold of the Western world.

While I admit that in the case offerred, I would agree with the poster, however, there are also many cases where the mother is unfit due to substance abuse, mental illness etc where the courts take no action.

For example recently, a father wanted custody of his 12 yr old daughter because his wife was letting her sleep with her 18 yr old boy friend. (I might be hazy on some of the details)

Even when a pregnancy resulted, the court took no action.

What's good for the gander is good for the goose.

What a lot of ... I don't know what you'd call this ranting.

The only useful comments are...

'Many people are hardline on protecting kids for as long as it appears that men will pay most of the cost. Once men start talking about how we could look at the risks of having kids with single mums and stepdads, it is amazing how quickly this hardline stance seems to disappear.'

Very apt with some of the comments on here.

Stev, Saturday, 27 March 2010 9:10:54 PM

The whole post identifies the issue 'fathers' groups have with the attempt to disslove 50/50 parenting. I haven't seen it affectively countered.

Vanna,

'Go to any woman who has been to a family law solicitor, and ask them if they were asked by their solicitor if they had been abused.

What? Every one of them.'

Exactly, Even at the Early Childhood centre, my partner was asked (routine y'know!) if she was scared of me and if I was violent. I wonder if I had turned up with our child if I'd have been asked that question. Maybe they'd ask me if my partner was absent because she was in the boot of my car?

CJ,

'Clearly, the Family Court got it wrong in this case. It seems to me that the question is whether it did so because of political pressure to go easier on fathers'

Succinct and accurate. The affirmative to that question by the author is not proven in any way, no matter how the author wants to 'relate Iraq and WMD'

Anti

It isn't wowserism to view the father's collection of porn as highly innappropriate.

It is wowserism to view the risk of sexual abuse as automatically more dangerous than the risk of other abuse. From the depiction of mum as a dangerous alcoholic, it appears that both parents are equally dangerous to these poor children. At least they have each parent watching the other.

It is now abundantly clear from comments here and by their spokesmen in the media that Father's Rights groups are defending fathers who are paedophiles and violent abusers of their wives and to excuse their conduct. Their arguments invariably are to blame anyone else "Mother's boyfriends and live-in lovers are worse child abusers than us", "Mothers are worse abusers than us". Or when they are losing a debate to launch personal abusive attacks. It is time they cast out the abusers and violent males in their midst, condemned the abusers such as the Tasmanian paedophile, and took responsibility for their actions.

There`s a type of person ,a narcissistic stand over bully that when confronted with the truth or made accountable for their actions, starts to deny,fabricate minimize,call names, blame others, use blackmail and other forms of emotional abuse to brow beat anyone who has the audacity to question their importance..Sound familiar..Anger management groups can help but you need at least some insight into your behaviour and a willingness to change..Mostly these deluded ,self righteous misandrists join left wing,,emotionally bankrupt womens right groups so they can be coached in false accusations, denial,how to continue to have control over their x spouse ,to use the children as weapons,how to manipulate the family law system ,avoid paying child support and all the while enjoy the support of other fractured sisters in the fight to make the bastard pay...sounds very familiar doesn`t it

Deleted for abuse.

Benk: <"From the depiction of mum as a dangerous alcoholic... ">

I didn't see that; where did that come from Benk ?

Benk:" It isn't wowserism to view the father's collection of porn as highly innappropriate."

Of course it is. I've already pointed out that in the 70s David Hamilton was able to amass a considerable fortune from the photography of young girls, all done with the proud consent of the parents of the children. Photographs are not "dirty": how people act in response to photographs often is. One of the dirtiest responses is to project one's own reactions to others. IOW, "I reckon I could get turned on by this, therefore you can't see it".

Benk: "It is wowserism to view the risk of sexual abuse as automatically more dangerous than the risk of other abuse"

No, that's simply expedience for the "mother's lobby", since it's the only form of abuse of children perpetrated more by men than by women.

It's also tailor made for women who don't much like sex to purse their lips and tut away at "those dreadful men". If it weren't so tragically consequential, it'd be hugely amusing.

Patricia Merkin is a lobyist on behalf of the National Coalition of Mothers Against Child Abuse. She is not an objective observer but a partisan participant in a divisive and emotional charged debate. Studying third year Arts/Law is hardly much of a qualification to be trumpeting - if it was I and thousands of other Law graduates every year would be 'experts'. That said Patricia obviously understands academic culture and is no doubt well on her way to a lifetime of paid academia in Family Law where she can collect honorific titles bestowed by her like-minded peers in the neverending merry-go-round of mutually supportive cross-referenced 'research'.

The very name of this organisation indicates an exclusive presumption that only men abuse children. The reality is that the greatest danger of abuse to children comes not from the children's biological father but rather from a non-biological 'parent' living in the family home - i.e. mum's boyfriend. This should not be extrapolated into a general indictment of all men, and particularly not used to slander biological fathers.

One of the reasons for a high rate of abuse of children in broken homes is that mothers are more successful in gaining sole custody (70% of cases) than fathers, which means that in this percentage of cases children are placed in a vulnerable situation by the Court when the mother inevitably repartners. Yet Patricia Merkin completely fails to mention this fact whilst instead focussing on the most isolated and unusual cases of abuse by a biological parent. It is futher worth mentioning than whatever the accusations against the father in the Tasmanian case cited, NO ALLEGATIONS of abuse toward his children were substantiated. Without having examined the evidence and read the judgment only a fool would rely on the tabloid press to interpret the facts in this case.

The greatest protection that can be afforded to children is the presence of their biologically father, with the small exception (and it is statistically very small) of cases such as the one this author has cherry picked. The exception is not the rule Patricia. This is the reason behind the Howard gov't's amendments to the Family Law Act to make the Family Court at least start from a presumption of shared parenting unless there is a compelling reason otherwise.

I think that's a brilliant summary Paulie.

Antiseptic ~ Quote ~ "I've already pointed out that in the 70s David Hamilton was able to amass a considerable fortune from the photography of young girls, all done with the proud consent of the parents of the children. Photographs are not "dirty": how people act in response to photographs often is. One of the dirtiest responses is to project one's own reactions to others. IOW, "I reckon I could get turned on by this, therefore you can't see it".
Notably the children's consent was not obtained and `Proud' parents do not always act in the best interests of their children. For what reasons would they be `proud' of showing off the naked bodies of their children?. Did they make the children aware before the photographs were taken of them naked that such photographs would be distributed far and wide for others to see and make available on their coffee tables?. Or what the impact would likely to be when they were adults and their friends and work colleagues etc would have access to them. What possible reason could an adult have for being interested in and to look constantly at the naked bodies of pre-pubescent children?.Your excuse for early stage paedophilia is very transparent Antiseptic.

Over 130,000 children per year are being maintained by Australian taxpayers because their parents (mainly fathers) evade child maintenance. Denial of financial support is one of the worst forms of child abuse, but of course is not recorded in official statistics unless it leads to neglect (due to insufficiency of income) when it is the mother who is blamed and named in official statistics. The Family Law Act has given a perfect vehicle for parents to evade child maintenance by taking on minimal `shared' care or full care. That was the major motive behind the Shared Care legislation. [`Shared Parenting' has always been the legal right of all parents on separation therefore it is a non-sequitur].
A close examination of a father's involvement in and interest in the `shared care' of the children BEFORE separation (as recommended by Professor Chisholm) would expose those who were using this mechanism for evasion of child maintenance payments and as a means of harrassing and further abusing their ex-partners, from those who were genuinely concerned for their children. I know which would be in the majority. But of course this is why the FR groups are fighting so desperately to preserve the `Shared Parenting' laws.

Wow ChazP, that's pretty amazing. All these fathers don't really like their own kids, but actually will look after them so their ex-spouse doesn't get as much money from them? You obviously don't like men or don't appreciate most men really love their kids.

Pynchme

Sorry, I cannot find where I got the alcoholic bit from either. The best that I can come up with is

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/fury-at-ruling-in-custody-battle/story-e6frf7l6-1225817724269

and

"The Family Court judge found Bill's ex-wife to be violent, untruthful, lacking moral values and responsible for the psychological and emotional abuse of her children - but still gave her custody of the two girls, now aged 9 and 11, because they had become estranged from their father."

http://www.news.com.au/national/sex-abuse-accused-dad-fights-back/story-e6frfkvr-1225822899736

Posted by vanna, Saturday, 27 March 2010 6:27:01 PM

Either I'm mistaken about the alcoholic bit, or I read it elsewhere. However, my argument still holds. The mum is as risky as the dad.

Chaz

There is something troublig about the number of parents evading child support. The current CSA system has created a number of unintended outcomes, such as large numbers of these parents. Perhaps this indicates a need to review levels of child support payable.

"Over 130,000 children per year are being maintained by Australian taxpayers because their parents (mainly fathers) evade child maintenance" - so what are the mothers of these children doing to meet the financial needs of the children?

Is it one of the worst forms of child abuse when a father won't pay but a non-issue when a mother is unwilling to provide financial support for children? That's the impression I get from reading the comments by some.

I've been a single parent for years with no regular financial support from my son's mother. A small number of things that she has specifically wanted have been paid for but no money directly to me for the day to day living cost's of raising a child. I've also had only the minimum of government support (minimum rates of Family Tax Benefit).

I've worked (thankfully with relatively flexible work arrangements) to keep our home going. It's not always ideal but life is not always ideal and for the most part it works well.

I think that we are all better off without the ongoing issues of having our finances tied together. Making the other decisions we need to make together as parents can be difficult enough without the ongoing pressures on both sides of tied finances.

R0bert

Dear ChazP,

You have no understanding of the child support system. The statement you declare.."Over 130,000 children per year are being maintained by Australian taxpayers because their parents (mainly fathers) evade child maintenance", is a misleading claim. What you overlook is that those children get a tax benefit part A and B paid to the parent with most care (usually the mother, surprise, surprise). This is paid to the custodial parent irrespective of the money given by the father. So ChazP, can you please explain to me how these kids are "maintained" by the taxpayer? The fathers don't get paid this money only the mothers. So if anything, the taxpayer is paying the mother. My guess is that you will have no idea what I am talking about because you are intellectually challenged!

Benk your argument doesn't hold if we're talking about the same case; because that isn't at all how the mother (or father) was described.
I gave a link to the court report a bit further back.

As for the other cases, I would want to read the court reports of those as well before uncritically accepting Laurie Nowell's articles on this sort of topic.

Benk, "Perhaps this indicates a need to review levels of child support payable."

I suspect that rates are seen by payers and payee's as either extravagant or inadequate depending on their circumstances. I posted a link to a dated summary of Child support material on one of the other thread's recently
http://www.childpolicyintl.org/childsupport.html

I don't know that I'm seeing the full picture but my impression was that Australian rates of child support are higher than other countries often considered more socially progressive than Australia

eg
Norway
* 11% for 1 child
* 18% for 2 children
* 24% for 3 children
* 28% for 4 or more children

Australia
* 18% for 1 child
* 27% for 2 children
* 32% for 3 children
* 36% for 5 or more children

I think that the spin and double standards around child support play a significant factor in peoples willingness to pay up. No account is taken of the circumstances which lead to the residency arrangements - the person who deliberately makes shared care impossible gets as much as the person left with the care of the children by a partner who does not want involvement.

As I've said a number of times I think that we would all be better off if child support was ditched or radically restructured so that parents had no ongoing financial ties to each other. It's an ongoing source of conflict in what's an already difficult situation. It's most definitely not in children's best interests to have their parents engaged in a protracted dispute over money.

R0bert

Anticeptic is comfortable with the actions of a man who "... admitted a plea of guilty to involved a video tape which the father had filmed from web pages. The video tape was a recording of various young girls, aged approximately 10 to 14 years, some were naked and some were in bikinis, which the father had downloaded from child pornographic web sites.""

I am with Benk when I absolutely refute the actions of this man as 'innocent'. He filmed the websites of naked and bikini-clad prepubescent girls for God's sake!

What possible reason did he have for doing this other than playing his movie back to himself later for his own 'enjoyment'?

He didn't paint or photograph them for arts sake at all Antiseptic!
He is a sick individual who needs to be kept away from young girls.

This post was deleted for abuse.

R0bert:"I think that we would all be better off if child support was ditched or radically restructured so that parents had no ongoing financial ties to each other."

I'm with you. I was reminded again yesterday of just how much this Agency is responsible for conflict. As I have said previously, my ex and I hace a deal whereby we share all costs of the kids equally. Well, it turns out that she hasn't been telling the CSA when I have given her money, so on Saturday, when I go to pay my power bill, I find that my account is empty and frozen and the $1500 that was in there is nowhere to be found. The CSA has still not informed me of their actions.

To put this in perspective, according to the CSA I should pay my ex about $450 a month, while I have actually paid about $4000 in the past 4 months, none of which they have been told about. IOW, I'm actually paying about twice what they assess, as well as spending money on their orthodontic treatment, clothes, books, outings, etc, which I don't make an accounting of. Call it about $10-$15K a year in addition to the assessed CS.

Now, the CSA's action, although heavy-handed thuggery, is not really the issue. The real issue is that I have been punished for her omissions and she has been rewarded by being given money she is not entitled to. If I complain to the CSA they will say "work it out with her" and will take no action. This is not the first time this has happened, but it will be the last. She will receive no more from me except whatever they manage to steal. I will not be held to ransom by her dishonesty.

I remain unable to access my bank account 5 days later.

The worst part of all this is that I thought we had come to a stable arrangement. It looks like it's back to the merry-go-round.

<"If the unlikely happens and he does offend against the kids, I'm sure we'll hear all about it and I'll be more than willing to say I was wrong.">

One of the children has already told at least 4 adults: the mother, police and a couple of counsellors that he took her into his bed (after he'd already been ordered not to do that anymore) and "badgered" her.

She has asked repeatedly not to be left alone with him.

I wonder how many adults you think this child needs to tell before she is assured of safety.

Yes she loves her father. Children who are abused often do love the abuser; they just want the abuse to stop. If he cared at all about stopping and he cared about ensuring that she feels safe, he would insist on supervised day visits so that he could rebuild her trust.

Instead we have idiots standing up for him regardless of the child's need and risks. THAT's why so many good men say you and your sick groups don't speak for them.

As for your hateful comment to ChasP - what a gutter level thing to say. It certainly evidences just the type of person you are.

[Deleted for abuse and poster suspended for two weeks]

Deleted for abuse.

[Deleted for abuse]

Deleted for abuse

"We've often discussed the issue of lesbian “social mothers”–women who agreed to employ a sperm donor so that they could have children with their lesbian partners, who are the biological mothers. Disputes between lesbian biological mothers and social mothers are now becoming routine. When the relationship goes sour, often the lesbian biological mom drives her ex out of their child's life, exactly as heterosexual mothers often do to their ex-husbands."

Glenn Sacks

Comment deleted and the commenter suspended for a week.

It is easy to tell when someone is losing a debate when they resort to ad hominem attacks. Antiseptic, I know it's difficult but don't descend to their level. I considered this debate over when the ad hominem attacks started because those in the author's camp were unable to rationally address the arguments raised.

Suspension just doubled.

The prospects for children who don't see their fathers are bleak,
according to a Unicef report in 2007. Educationally, they do less well.
They are more likely to get in trouble with the police, and to abuse drugs
and alcohol. They also find it more difficult to form relationships. If
Broken Britain ¬ that over-used moral call to arms ¬ has roots, they lie in
broken homes. A third of children are now growing up without parents living
under the same roof. Each of the 150,000 to 200,000 separations per year is
a source of sadness for the children involved, children who yearn ¬ however
unrealistically ¬ for mummy and daddy to live together happily ever after.

Not only did these women want total control of the children ¬
believing their love was enough ¬ they also expected their exes to keep
them in the style to which they had become accustomed, while the men lived
in cramped bedsits. When one man finally manages to remortgage his own home
to keep a working mother in hers, her response is: “OK, so I can book a
holiday.”

Or there's a simple recommend for delete button.

Just a note of praise for our moderator, GrahamY. I happen to think is is exactly the right way to handle intemperate comments. It is transparent, highly visible to all, and effective. Sorry I missed the show, though. It must have been quite something.

@samiam, Monday, 29 March 2010 12:35:56 PM: Deleted for abuse.

@Antiseptic, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 4:29:33 AM: This post was deleted for abuse.

@Antiseptic, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 6:37:53 AM: [Deleted for abuse and poster suspended for two weeks]

@CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 6:44:39 AM: Deleted for abuse.

@Antiseptic, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 6:49:37 AM: [Deleted for abuse]

GY

Thank-you

Pynchme

I read the report that you found and it is unclear if it describes the same case as my newspaper articles, certainly the cases are quite similar. The description of the mother as manipulative, violent and alcoholic is no-where to be seen. On the other hand, the judge has very little to say about the mother, which seems quite odd. I wonder if the judge was trying to avoid being quoted. I don't have either the skills or the time to trawl through court reports looking for other cases that the newspaper article might refer to.

Based on what is in the court report, I agree that the dad shouldnt have unsupervised access to his kids. I would also point out that one of the more disturbing allegations concerning the father involved his step-daughter (see part 77 of the judgement).

Regarding the newspaper reports, they may well have been written by a biased journalist. To the extent that it is true that the mother has retained custody to provide stability for the kids and because of the children's wishes but despite the history of psychological abuse, then it could indicate that protecting kids from (proved) abuse needs to be given more weight, relative to those other concerns. I would also argue that returning to the system where parents where rewarded for fronting court and making baseless allegations puts kids at greater risk for this type of psychological abuse. Any parent who will walk into a court report and tell these type of lies needs to be kept away from kids as much as possible.

It seems that it is not appropropriate for the "administrative arm of Government" to "encourage" the Judiciary.... yeah what a load of *&^%## Everyone knows when you have "dual residency" no one is entitled to Government payments - be careful who you vote for and yes Minsters, women do vote - still

WOW! this must be a record for OLO, for deletions and suspensions.

rstuart: You left my deletion out!

You need to retally.

See what I get for going to work for a day or two. That'll never happen again, let me tell you.

I think any post worthy of deletion is going to be such a hoot as to be worth reposting in an archive.

Personally, I regret missing Anti's for entertainment, but ChazP [deleted for abuse] so deleting hers may breach "duty of care" or "honest reporting of events".

GrahamY: is it possible to preseve such posts so they may be available for later vilification of the parties involved? Restricted (with disclaimer) to registered logons or somesuch?

Rusty

whoops,

ChazP didn't have a deletion.
Shame really.

It's not there is anything new to say there.

Rusty

Now, now Rusty.

I'm not saying anything about your inflammatory remark or I might be sentenced to life in front of the firing squad or summin. So whatever.

I agree with what you say about having an archive for the best of the worst though - it could even be really funny.

pynch

The issue as to whether children should have contact with (allegedly) abusive parents is a tough one.

There are many things that may influence a childs life, parents with mental illness, siblings with mental illness, the death of a parent or sibling. Bullying is making big news at the moment.

Once upon a time children at risk were pulled out of family homes and stuck in institutions.

I suspect only a small number of toxic families wind up before the family court.

FWIW, I think that Graham acted properly in deleting those posts (including my own) and suspending those users that he did.

When somebody posts a comment that is egregiously offensive, the most appropriate response is to use the 'recommend for deletion' button, rather than flaming back. It may not be as satisfying, but all that flame wars do is to lower the tone of the discussion overall.

We shouldn't feed trolls or respond to baiting by flamers.

@Pynchme: rstuart: You left my deletion out! You need to retally.

Sorry Pynchme, it wasn't personal. I simply got tired of copying and pasting.

But if my omission really offends you, feel free to recommend my post for deletion. It would be a perfectly reasonable course of action in the circumstances.

No JamesH, it is not a tough decision to protect children from abuse and violence, or the potential for such abuse and violence. It is not `alleged' when there are convictions for known paedophiliac conduct (e.g. recent Tasmanian case and many others), or when the Statutory Child Protection agencies state that the abuse is substantiated after their expert investigations.i.e. Doctors. Police, and Social Workers.
The problem is that when `allegations' are made by children and are conveyed to the Court by a parent, the Family Courts do not have the expertise nor the resources to conduct a thorough and competent investigation of such allegations (by their own admission). Therefore such alleagions fail by default because they are `unproven' to the Court's satisfaction when made by a lay person. False allegations by children of abuse are extremely rare.
Mothers have been severely rebuked and reprimanded by Judges, made to pay all Court costs when abuse allegations are unproven, they have had the children removed from their care and placed with the `alleged' abuser. If they have dared refuse to comply with Court ordered contact because they believe their child when their child discloses abuse or there are distinctive marks which can be identified as having been caused by abuse, the mothers have been imprisoned without facing a criminal charges, having a jury decide on the evidence, and in absolute secrecy from public and media scrutiny.

Very harsh punishments indeed for making allegations of child abuse which cannot be proven because of a lack of expertise in Courts. Judges, Family Reporters, and Independent Child Lawyers have little knowledge or expertise in child development, child abuse, and domestic violence and are therefore unsympathetic and unaware of the consequences for children. So it is little wonder that mothers are so terrified to bring allegations of child abuse to the Family Courts, despite considerable and weighty evidence to prove their case.
The risk is too great ~ so the child abuser continues unseen and unchecked.
Such cases are not a small number across Australia but are occurring every week and many cases continue for years.

ChazP, thanks for repeating the new feminist mantra that mothers are terrified of being punished for unproven abuse allegations and that children are being placed with abusive fathers as a result.

"Such cases are not a small number across Australia but are occurring every week"

If you would be so kind to point me to the statistical evidence on this assertion I would greatly appreciate it. And, please, no anecdotes. I have my own store of anecdotes on the alienation of children from their fathers by vindictive mothers.

Gosh looks like lots of action on this thread.

Trouble is you cannot always prove abuse if the family has spent the better part of their lives trying to keep it hidden and private.

Anyone who has ever been raped, bullied or abused in some way knows the greatest fear (other than continuation of the abuse) is the fear of not being believed.

Proof in the form of concrete evidence is not always available, which is why the wish of the children concerned should be paramount in custody cases.

(Maybe we should use polygraphs to separate truth from lies)

As I said many posts ago, these are difficult and complicated issues and the anti-gender focus these debates tend to incidte is not helpful to those who are being abused, nor to decisions about fair child custody arrangements.

Stew ` "If you would be so kind to point me to the statistical evidence on this assertion I would greatly appreciate it. And, please, no anecdotes”.
I’m sure you are more than aware that such information is not routinely collected and collated by statutory authorities in Australia, however I would commend to you bedside reading of some of the research into these matters. Several studies of child protection case records in the last two decades have suggested that a majority of children living with a domestically violent father experience multiple forms of abuse which includes, not only physical abuse but direct emotional abuse and psychological terrorisation from their fathers, in addition to the negative impact of witnessing violence towards their mothers and that a substantial minority also experience sexual abuse ( see for example, Abrahams, l994; Farmer and Owen, l995; Hester and Radford, l996;Hester and Pearson, l998; McGee, 2000; Brown et al; 2000). Research with mothers post-separation also indicates that such children continue to be abused in the post-separation context (Hilton, l992; Abrahams, l994; Forman, l995; Hester and Radford, l996; Hester and Pearson, l998; Radford et al: l999).
In recent times former Justices Alistair Nicholson and Richard Chisholm have both expressed serious concerns that Courts are not adequately examining allegations of domestic violence and child abuse and Chief Justice Diana Bryant is stating similar concerns.
The effects on children of being abused and exposed to intimate partner violence and intra-familial terrorism are severe and long-lasting.
The theories of `alienation’ (and its associated terminology of coaching, alignment etc) by Gardner no longer hold validity and utility in Family Courts since they were exposed as junk science and sympathetic to paedophiles.

Pelican, you are absolutely correct that the focus needs to be on protecting those that are abused rather than gender. However, this is not an absolute right to protection, as the zeal to protect an abused child may actually lead to greater harm (such as excluding innocent parents from a meaningful role in their child's upbringing or worse). As I reported, sexual abuse by a biological parent is actually a relatively rare phenomenon and abuse is far more likely to occur in other contexts.

I am also wary of letting children decide custody arrangements. There is no doubt in my mind that children can be coached and manipulated by adults (of either gender).

Check out the following website on false allegations of child abuse for some scary case histories: http://www.truthinjustice.org/child-abuse.htm

The website opens with an interesting statement:

"Our instincts are to protect and defend defenseless children. It is a measure of a civilized society. It is equally instinctive to presume guilt. That tendency is even stronger when the accused must prove a negative---that what he or she is accused of didn't happen---and the accuser is a physician with a stack of degrees or, equally potent, a child. These combinations have led to countless criminal convictions: parents, day care providers, teachers, neighbors---even when the charges cannot be supported by objective scientific evidence, or when there was no physical evidence at all to support the claims."

ChazP, I have no doubt that abusive people (of either gender) engage in all sorts of abusive practices. My request for statistics speaks to the PREVALENCE of the problem. Your emotive language implicitly (if not explicitly - would you care to clarify?) suggests that this is such a major social problem that we need to overturn a presumption of shared parenting to protect these children. My assertion backed with voluminous data suggests that such cases are relatively rare. I would be very interested to hear your estimates of child sexual abuse by fathers.

By the way, ever since the ritual abuse scandals of the 1980s, I think there is little doubt that children can be coached to create false memories - whether you label this "lying" or not is simply a semantic hedge. Child suggestibility is well established in the psychological literature.

Re: alienation - Fidler and Bala, Family Court Review (2010) - "The negative short-term and long-term effects of alienation, including intrusive parenting have been well documented (e.g., Baker, 2007; Barber, 2002; Johnston, 2005a; Johnston, Roseby, & Kuehnle, 2009; Johnston, Walters, & Olesen, 2005c)."

Stew ~ I make no apology if my comments and opinions are perceived as `emotive’ – not to have opinions without an emotive element are psychopathic.
Shared parenting is a legal principle – on separation both parents retain their full legal rights in regard to their children. They can only lose such legal rights if a child is adopted. It is a non-sequitur.
The issue is one of the presumption that there should be `shared care’, and often irrespective of prior incidents of domestic violence and child abuse, or whether a parent has previously been involved in the shared care of the child, and regardless of the fact that the child may dislike or even detest that particular parent or be extremely fearful of that parent.

The Satanic ritual abuse scandals of the 1980’s were caused mainly by religious zealots in the child protective agencies e.g. The Orkney’s Scandal, Nottingham, Rochdale, Manchester, Durham etc. In many of these events the children often appealed vigorously that they had not been abused and the whole scenarios were created by the CP workers who fabricated and embellished evidence. Subsequent research showed there was no evidence of Satanic Ritual Abuse and the children’s evidence was vindicated. They did not lie.

The research you refer to examined cases where `alienation’ had been accepted by Courts based on Gardner’s theories. Since the discrediting of such theories then such research is valueless.

There are no reliable statistics on child sexual abuse by fathers. Informed expert opinion states that child sexual abuse is grossly under-reported (as is rape of adult females) and even when reported to CP agencies is notoriously difficult to prove even as children’s testamentary evidence can easily destroyed by clever defence lawyers, there is often little forensic evidence (child sexual abusers seldom leave physical evidence of their crimes, and naturally there are rarely any witnesses to support the child’s allegations. Perhaps the most reliable evidence of child sexual abuse by fathers and others was the high percentage of adults who stated in research that they had been sexually abused as children within their families.

There are a number of problems with research methodology.

Firstly it is data collection. If data is not collect, for a specific issue, then it is easy to say that the problem does not exist, case in point is the WSS.

Secondly is researcher bias, typically pregnant women are asked about DV, but fathers are not.

Typically research into DV questions are leading questions, "When was the last time he hit you?", "When was the last time you hit her?"

Recently I was asked to partake in some research into "community attitudes to violence," very quickly it turn into attitudes about violence against women. I declined to partake in such biased research.

Typically when figures are considered, the data is inflated by including all different types of behaviour, but when it is argued, the arguement always falls back onto physical violence.

Yes, Chaz, a lack of emotion is psychopathy but an emotive outburst without a factual basis is hysteria, which is why it is important that we have a fact-based debate. The ritual abuse cases (not to mention the original Salem witch hunts in the 17th century) are useful reminders of why we need to keep a check on hysteria.

I was not aware that the term 'shared parenting' referred to what my jurisdiction calls "joint legal custody" and that 'shared care' is the term used to refer to "joint physical custody". If it makes you more comfortable I will refer to "shared care" rather than "shared parenting".

Your characterization of the issue as a "presumption...often irrespective" of negative behaviors mischaracterizes the nature of a legal presumption which allows the presumption to be over-ridden in the face of credible evidence". I agree that a presumption would be an inefficient, perhaps dangerous, mechanism if there was an epidemic of abuse by parents out there.

Re: Satanic Abuse: The McMartin case in the US revolved around childrens' testimony. I suggest you read http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_1_6.htm or http://www.truthinjustice.org/child-abuse.htm There is absolutely NO DOUBT that children gave coached testimony that was NOT TRUE. (There is also no doubt that the children denied abuse until they came in contact with unscrupulous counselors).

I would appreciate (and expect) a retraction of your claim that it was the counselors, not the children, who lied (or confabulated, if that word works better for you).

Re: alienation. My cite was to a 2010 paper in a peer reviewed journal. Gardner's PAS has been discredited as simplistic/erroneous but most researchers in the field accept that alienating behaviors can occur (see for instance 'alienated child theory'). If this line of research had been discredited it wouldn't appear in peer-reviewed journals.

Re: reliable statistics - you still haven't provided me with your estimate of prevalence of sexual abuse by fathers.

Stew ~ “but an emotive outburst without a factual basis is hysteria” ~ I agree and I know you will agree that a perfect illustration is the hysteria in the shrill voices of Father’s Rights groups regarding the proposals to bring changes to the Family Law Act.

‘Joint legal custody’ only occurs if both parents are living in the same household as the child. It is an entirely different principle to having parental rights and responsibilities, even when separated. “Custody” of a child has abhorrently detestable connotations and brings reminders of the Austrian father who kept `custody’ of his daughter in an underground cell for 29 years and continuously sexually abused her.

There are over 500,000 REPORTED cases of child abuse in Australia every year, and informed sources suggest that there are many more cases which are unreported. In a population of 4.5 million children I think it reasonable to state that there is an epidemic of child abuse in Australia. If it were a virus or bacteriological infection it certainly would be.

The asking of leading questions by counsellors, social workers, and police was a feature of several of the Satanic Ritual Abuse Scandals but that does not fit with the description of `coaching’ as advanced by those claiming the existence of `alienation’. Leading questions occur after the fact, whilst `coaching’ is said to occur before the fact. So no retraction.

If the research you identify were proven as a scientific fact (‘peer review’ is merely one element in such process) it would be acceptable in law. (see Daubert-Merrill test of expert evidence).

I do not propose to estimate the prevalence of reported child sexual abuse by fathers. Child sexual abuse within families is largely perpetrated by fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, de facto partners, and to a lesser extent by other family members. Less than 5% of child sexual abuse is committed by strangers. I would observe however there does appear to be more natural father paedophiles serving prison sentences for such crimes than stranger paedophiles.

I think we've all become bogged down discussing the particular facts in this case, and hypothesising on the likelihood of the father offending against his own children. Obviously it's not an ideal situation, but we know little about the mother and presumably the Judge had very good reasons for making the determination that he did. To claim he did so simply because of the Howard Gov't's legislative amendments to the FLA is spurious and misleading.

To keep things in perspective, another Tasmanian case (what is it about Tasmania?!) arose at the same time - this one where a mother prostituted her own 12 yo daughter, with the help of her next door neighbour (boyfriend?), so they would all have money to buy drugs. "The Supreme Court in Hobart heard the girl's mother took most of the money, Devine [the neighbour] took a smaller cut and the girl used her own share to buy drugs for herself, her mother and Devine." - http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/03/23/135701_scalesofjustice.html

It is a fantasy for people like Patricia Merkin to pretend only men abuse children, women do too but often in different ways. Anyone can sit here and trawl through the detritus of the Family Court cherrypicking isolated sensational cases. To do so and then extrapolate a straw man argument indicates an abject lack of professionalism and bigotted bias.

Thanks Houellebecq, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 1:21:29 PM.

"and informed sources suggest that there are many more cases which are unreported."

When I read such statements it reminds me of the fear about "reds" under the bed syndrome.

One of the problems of abuse, is that what the authorities regard as abusive behaviour, may in some or alot of families be regarded as normal behaviour.

In fact even the setting of limits or boundaries by parents can be regard as abusive behaviour in some circumstances.

No father who has an interest in child pornography should be granted rights to children. Simply they are accessories to abuse and are a significant risk to their children and any child for that matter.

They are pedophiles in their own right and offer nothing but risk.

Children need to be protected from these creeps. Look at the statistics before trying to blame things on mothers and women in general. 95% of domestic/ sexual violence is performed by males.

Any creep that poses a risk to any child needs to be dealt with harshly. The courts need to stop pussyfooting around with these societal menaces. They cant be rehabilitated. A murderer has more of a chance of being rehabilitated than a filthy child pervert.

Pedophiles need to be put away once and for all.

JamesH ~ Perhaps you could define for us what you consider to be `Normal' parenting behaviour and more importantly what you consider to be abnormal!. Some groups in our society believe circumcising children, both male and female, to be `normal'. There are those who believe that sex with children is `normal', or downloading child pornography from the Internet or displaying photos of naked pre-pubescent girls on coffee tables, to be 'Normal'. Was it `Normal' for Steve Irvine to take his small child into a crocodile enclosure or Michael Jackson to dangle his baby over a hotel balcony?. Or Britney Spears to carelessly hold her child, risking a dangerous fall?.
What is considered by `authorities' to be abusive behaviour is mostly a reflection of our society's view of `Normal' parenting behaviour, although sometimes they get such interpretation `wrong'. But just who does set the rules?. You?.
Do you intervene if you see a child being ill-treated in a shopping Mall, according to your beliefs?. Or do you pass by on the other side of the street and leave it to the Good Samaritans?. Or the `authorities?. If your neighbour's wife told you he was sexually abusing their young daughter, what would you do?. Or if you heard him beating his wife every night, hearing her screams and seeing her bruises the next day, and knowing their three young children were in the house?.
Or would all of that come within your definition of `normality' of family life?.

@ms_boot: Pedophiles need to be put away once and for all.

Yes indeed.

@ms_boot: No father who has an interest in child pornography should be granted rights to children.

Well, maybe. It would be a lot easier say that if we knew that who looked at pictures acted out what they saw in real life. But of course they don't. People who see war movies don't immediately go our and join the army, people who buy car racing magazines don't go our and race cars. Come to that, men who like porn don't even want their wives to act lie porn stars, in fact the idea would horrify most.

But of course you already know that. Regardless, you fall for the logic of the current moral panic and equate looking at pictures with paedophilia.

It would not be such an issue if it didn't also mean you rob children of what is almost certainly the second most important resource they have available to them after their biological mother: their biological father.

rstuart ~ Perhaps you could explain what healthy reason an adult male would have for looking at photographs of naked children and even to go to the lengths of seeking them out on the Internet and downloading them onto a computer for further examination. And to pay large sums of money to obtain such photographs of naked children.
A child will not know the possible consequences and repercussions of having a photograph taken of them naked, which can occur in later life or even immediately if school friends see them. Is that not taking advantage of their naivete' and innocence and thereby abusing them?.
Do not people who watch War movies have a pre-disposition towards violence and seeing others mutilated and horrifyingly killed?. Do not those who have an interest in car magazines and racing get an excitement, titillation, and stimulation from watching those activities?. Is not the major reason for people to go to motor racing in the hope of seeing spectacular crashes?. Some males who watch porn movies do expect their wives to act out what they have seen while others yearn for such but may not have the courage to make their wives behave in such ways. Being exposed to violence, abnormal sexual acts, and other stimulative and titillating activities has a gradual brutalising effect on people and which can and often does, lead them to act out what they have seen

Rstuart

>>> It would not be such an issue if it didn't also mean you rob children of what is almost certainly the second most important resource they have available to them after their biological mother: their biological father. <<<

You believe that biology has a greater import for a child than protecting said child from possible sexual predation of a parent who engages in viewing child porn?

Well, Antiseptic isn't alone on OLO after all, how many other OLO contributors have no issues with child porn?

How do you view adoptive parents - less able than biological parents?

Very strange, very warped.

JamesH: << One of the problems of abuse, is that what the authorities regard as abusive behaviour, may in some or alot of families be regarded as normal behaviour. >>

What a profoundly silly statement. Undoubtedly there are families where incest, child-beating, genital mutilation etc are regarded as "normal" behaviour, which is why we have laws and agencies to override them.

As for child pornography, I'm not so concerned about people acting out what they choose to view - I don't think there's much reliable evidence one way or the other. Rather, what concerns me is that consumers of child pornography and their defenders seem oblivious to the fact that the production of pornography using children constitutes abuse, in which consumers are complicit since they create the demand for the odious product.

Having said that, I think that cartoon material such as the notorious 'Simpsons' parody should not be illegal, since no child was abused in its production.

With respect to the case under discussion, the father not only sought out, downloaded and reproduced child pornography, but also was inclined to invite his daughter into his bed. For those reasons he should not have unsupervised access to his children.

Rstuart, you seem to be missing the point. You are simply taking a convenient defensive position. Let me ask you this:- how would you feel if some pervert took pictures of your daughter and posted them on the internet to be viewed by pedophiles?

Would you change your opinion then? Would your sanitised opinion of viewing child porn change or would you remain stuck in your convenient position about this?

rstuart ~ `Biological fathers' - so a 30 second act of donating sperm (ok girls I exaggerate on the time involved but I do sometimes have to protect their fragile little ego's) qualifies a male to absolute right and entitlement over a child. I have known many foster fathers, adoptive fathers, step-fathers, and even live-in lovers who gave their time and devotion to other men's children and were far better fathers than the `Biological' sperm donor.

What also seems to be overlooked is that `Biological fathers' go on to become the step-fathers and live-in lovers who abuse the children of other biological fathers and are so despised and reviled by those `biological fathers' and blamed for the child abuse. So in many instances, `Biological fathers' are blaming themselves.
Please explain!.

You are so right there ChazP, but I have never been game enough to say it!
I often wondered whether these militant Fathers groups have ever thought that the nasty step-fathers or single mother's male partners they vilify were also biological fathers to other women's children?

Doesn't this make all those guys hard done by the 'feminazis' as well?
Aren't many of these men also embroiled in Family Court disputes of their own?

Why aren't these men worthy of protection and support by the militant father's groups as well?
By saying that most child sex abuse is not committed by the 'biological' fathers, but by the step-fathers or defacto husbands of the nasty single women, they are shooting themselves in the foot.

Many of these men are also biological fathers to other children.

Yes SuzeOnline [Deleted for abuse].
1. PAS is dead and buried.
2. 'Mothers abuse kids more than Dads' ~ only by neglecting them (except the rare case of physical abuse by a mother which is seized on as a great prize)because those `Good Dads' evade child maintenance.
3. `Ogling photos and downloading child porn are not child abuse and first stage paedophilia' ~ so why else do they buy such photos to ogle?. Do they not consider that children have been abused to satisfy their sick fetish.
4. 'We are not abusing our kids, its all those Step-Dads and Live-in lovers' ~ the `Good Dads' (biological fathers) ARE the Step-Dads and Live-in lovers and are the biological fathers who've already abused their own kids.
5. "Its only a small number of kids who are abused and killed after being ordered into contact/residency with `Good Dads'". No!. there are hundreds every year and increasing as Family Courts uphold father's rights and force kids into contact with them. The Father's Rights to further abuse their kids and kill them. The Father's Rights to continue to harrass and abuse their former partners and make life hell for them because their ex-partners rejected them.
6. "All Mums who allege domestic violence and child abuse are mad". Well this is the latest which must be put back in its box. Mums are suffering Post Traumatic Stress after years of being physically, emotionally, sexually, and financially abused but hired guns psychiatrists/psychologists misdiagnose this as `Personality Disorders'. Well the first of these hired gun psychiatrists will fall soon for professional malpractice l.e. failing to assess according to professional standards and by misdiagnosing.
The Walls of Jericho are falling [Deleted for abuse].

A belated response to Chaz...

"perfect illustration is the hysteria in the shrill voices of Father’s Rights groups regarding the proposals to bring changes to the Family Law Act"

You would have to give me specific examples of hysteria because suggesting a change in shared care based on an elevated risk of abuse from biological fathers has been shown to have no factual basis in the NIS4 data.

Re: custody - I'm not sure what you emotive outburst against the term 'custody' was meant to achieve (with its "abhorrently detestable connotations"). That is currently the term used in my jurisdiction - why don't you take the terminology up with them?

Re: 500K out of 4.5m - is that an epidemic of abuse or an epidemic of reporting? - are you really suggesting that the average child will have 2 reported cases of abuse against them in their childhood? Who knew childhood was such a dangerous place! P.S. How many of these cases are unsubstantiated?

Re: coaching vs. leading questions - I brought the ritual abuse cases up as evidence that children DO lie during testimony. There is absolutely no doubt that the children concocted total fantasies during these trials. For instance, that abusers entered through secret tunnels under the preschool that were never found by investigators. That's because there were no tunnels! According to you, "Leading questions occur after the fact, whilst `coaching’ is said to occur before the fact. " Um...the problem is that there were NO facts. Your coaching/leading distinction is utterly irrelevant.

Re: Science must be acceptable in law. See next post.

Re: Sexual Abuse Statistics - please provide some hard evidence of your claims in this paragraph as they differ dramatically from the numbers in the NIS4 study quoted earlier.

Re: Parental alienation must be recognized in law for it to be 'good' science.

Um...there are a multitude of cases where the science preceded its recognition in law, the Scopes monkey trial being perhaps the most famous example. Tourette's syndrome also took 90 years after its discovery to enter the DSM-IV.

Even so, you will be disappointed to learn that the Florida Circuit Court gave legal force to parental alienation syndrome (PAS) in 2000 having ruled that it passed the Frye Test that states "for scientific evidence to be admissible in court it must be gathered using techniques that have gained general acceptance in their field".

See Kilgore v. Boyd, Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, Hillsborough County, Family Law Division, Case No. 94-7573, Div. D.

Or perhaps you would prefer a Canadian case (Reeves v Reeves 2001), later cited by a judge in a 2008 case:

"Based on a significant number of studies and case law in this area, any support or encouragement by one parent that the children not have a relationship with the other parent simply demonstrates the irresponsibility of the parent who has the children and demonstrates
that parent’s inability to act in the best interests of their children. Children do not always want to go to school or want to go to the dentist’s or doctor’s. It is the responsibility of good parents to manage their children’s health and safety issues without necessarily the consent or joy of their children. A healthy relationship with both parents is a health and safety issue that good parents ensure takes place."

Let me summarize Chaz's last argument:

"Men bad, women good"

There is literally nothing that a woman can do that won't get her a pass from Chaz. Child abuse and neglect - there has to be a man behind it all, personality disorder - also a man's fault. A woman's partner abusing the child? Clearly nothing the mother could have done.

If anyone is still reading this thread, you might want to note that the Australian Institute of Criminology reports that 25 children per year are killed by their parents - 63% by men and 37% by women. Around 1 in 5 of these homicides were linked to a family breakdown (i.e. about 5 cases per year). See http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/9/C/B/%7B9CBFDFE5-F9B2-4FEB-A14A-3166810B564F%7Dtandi255.pdf

So Chaz's claim that "Its only a small number of kids who are abused and killed after being ordered into contact/residency with `Good Dads'". No!. there are hundreds every year and increasing as Family Courts uphold father's rights and force kids into contact with them" is deserving of censure.

Of course, Chaz and Suze's great revelation is that non-biological fathers might also be biological fathers. So the tortured logic is:
a) non-biological parents are 10 times more likely to abuse children
b) all of these abusers are male
c) all of the male abusers have fathered their own children
d) therefore all biological fathers abuse children.
e) therefore all biological fathers should be kept as far away as possible from children
QED.
A gold star for the first person who sees a problem with the logic.

The reality however, is:
a) non-biological parents are 10 times more likely to abuse children
b) mothers are more likely to physically abuse children and much more likely to neglect them
c) homicide and child sexual abuse are extremely rare events and 20% of sexual abuse and 40% of homicides are perpetrated by women.

Stev:

- and you'll be disappointed to learn that despite the parent alienation syndrome being used in several cases, that it has been more frequently rejected. Further, it doesn't need to pass the Frye standard to be admitted - any expert testimony is acceptable as long as the expert's credentials pass muster and the court accepts them. Sometimes courts get it wrong, especially when the more financially viable non-resident parent can afford private legal representation.

- The old creep Gardner himself stated that PAS doesn't apply where abuse actually occurs. The problem therefore is that PAS is used to cloud inquiries into allegations, which the family court is not equipped to investigate anyway. PAS does NOT explain away allegations - the allegations still require independent consideration and where possible, investigation.

- If in the unlikely event that PAS was accepted as a (pffft) "syndrome"; the remedy proposed by Gardner remains an outrageous cruelty.

- and nothing that happens in court is going to make it plausible scientifically until it goes through a proper process, which it hasn't. It is most unlikely to gain credibility amongst credible clinical practitioners or theorists. Credible practitioners regard it as the junk work that it is.

http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~kwaits/dv_parental_alienation_syndrome.pdf

BTW: Statistics gleaned from personal safety surveys; where adults report on abuses perpetrated against them have 4% males and about 8% females stating that they were sexually abused as children, with the perpetrator in more than 3/4 of cases being a close male relative or parent.

BTW: EXACTLY what do you propose as a way of protecting children who have experienced sexual abuse. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that they are safe?

Pynchme, re: PAS

According to Chaz, PAS is "dead and buried". I think you can fairly concede that that is not the case. I made no claims about its relative success rate in any court of law, I was merely refuting this point.

"PAS does NOT explain away allegations - the allegations still require independent consideration and where possible, investigation." AGREED.

" the remedy proposed by Gardner remains an outrageous cruelty." WHAT WOULD YOUR REMEDY BE (assuming one parent has not seen their child for years as a result of the alienating tactics of the other parent)?

" Statistics gleaned from personal safety surveys; where adults report on abuses perpetrated against them have 4% males and about 8% females stating that they were sexually abused as children, with the perpetrator in more than 3/4 of cases being a close male relative or parent."

Actually, the 2005 survey has 12% of females claiming sexual abuse under the age of 15. According to the report, 16.5% of the perpetrators were fathers OR step fathers = 2% of the female population claiming they were sexually abused by a father or step father. From the NIS4 survey, we know that step fathers are more likely to abuse, placing the rate somewhere below 2% for biological fathers - pretty much in line with the NIS4 data - is this an epidemic as claimed by Chaz that requires all biological fathers to be placed under suspicion?

Re: Mechanisms. I think the mechanisms is place right now are just fine, recognizing that Type I and Type II errors will occur in any system. Stigmatizing fathers is not a productive solution.

You still haven't given your solution.

Mine is supervised day contact. Children very often continue to love the abuser (at least until they're older and realize with grief and dismay how their trust has been misused); as children they just want the abuse to stop. They want to feel safe.

Children should also be interviewed by one non-threatening, trained counselor and those interviews should be recorded so that there can be little chance of charges of improper questioning.

You think 1 in 100 children is an irrelevant figure? It's the same rate per 100 population for schizophrenia and nobody would call the prevalence rate of schizophrenia irrelevant. Just how many cases would you need before you would think that child safety is the priority in these sorts of cases?

I also believe that there are factors pertinent to the types of conflictual relationships that end up in this type of court that would tend to pool abusers into this category. It is well established in the literature that child abuse of all types, including sexual abuse, is more prevalent where DV figures in the parental relationship.

Supervised day contact would also help reestablish relationships where there have been long absences; without upsetting the child's routine too much. In fact, any parent who has been absent for a long time would be considerate of the need to earn the child's trust gradually.

Stev: <"all biological fathers to be placed under suspicion?">

All biological fathers in these contested cases, yes.

<"Re: Mechanisms. I think the mechanisms is place right now are just fine...">

Since there are no mechanisms to guarantee the safety of any children against their abusers - irrespective of the child's wishes or allegations of child sexual abuse; I suppose you would be satisfied.

<"recognizing that Type I and Type II errors will occur in any system. Stigmatizing fathers is not a productive solution.">

Whatever Type 1 and 11 errors are; I don't know what you're talking about there.

Do you know who is responsible for stigmatizing fathers? Fathers and MRAs.

If MRAs were really into parenting, they would put the children first - including ensuring that babies could be breastfed and able to live to a reasonable routine. As groups they would be interested in things such as how to demonstrate care for their kids; child development; safety and risk; relationship issues; how to maintain a welcoming atmosphere for children; parenting skills; how to manage a blended family situation; homemaking skills; craft; ideas for day activities; the economics of different types of activities that they can do with their kids... and so on.

The good fathers would also be distancing themselves from abusive males and having some sort of screening for detecting unwholesome characters and directing them to some sort of counseling help or educational support group.

However, look at any of their sites and what do you see?

Hate; revenge; how to force their will on others; how to manipulate. Moan, moan, moan.

Supervised day contact.
According to a report in The Age today, in some cases separated parents ordered by a court to have visits to their children supervised are waiting months to see them through lack of contact centres.

There is a lack of contact centres in country areas.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/parents-denied-child-visits-20100404-rlnr.html

Protecting children through the family court or DoCS is a complete waste of time and money. The courts routinely hand children over to their abusers.The article depicts just one case. Until children are actually treated as humans with respect and the right to be safe and not placed in a position where they are clearly at risk- not just physical but psychological risk. This has sent these children a clear message- one that will impact on them for the rest of their lives.
The Family Court has never been about the best interests of children and until it actually is children will continue to be put at risk.I am surprised that there are so many that think the court is biased against fathers?it is actually biased against children..

Stew ~ `Father’s Rights groups hysteria' – I suggest reading some of the garbage on Family Law Web Guide and some previous postings on this thread and their outbursts in the media.
DSMIV – a list of alleged mental disorders whose primary purpose is to serve the financial vested interests of psychiatrists as they can only get U.S. government funding for disorders so listed. A kind of build your own gravy train.
“Men bad, women good” – I am simply responding to the “Men all good, women all evil” arguments of the rabid misogynists. But then, who am I to question the veracity and innate wisdom of Almighty Man.!

Frye Test has been superceded by the more stringent Daubert Merrill test and even then it is not stringent enough of expert testimony. Psychological/psychiatric theories are rarely independently tested under scientific conditions and cannot produce statistical evidence of false positives and true negatives or those who they have successfully `cured’ of the conditions (labels) applied to them. Ipso facto ~ there is no science to any psychological/psychiatric theory therefore `mumbo jumbo junk science’ is a fairly accurate description. The process of creating a new `psychological theory' is – create a new condition/syndrome/disorder with no scientifically conducted research merely conjectures, write a reasonably academic paper, get a few others in the profession to agree it (for their own financial good of course), float it in a Court of Law for gullible lawyers and judges to give it a bit of authenticity, then put it up for DSMIV approval. QED.

Children do not lie in the adult sense of lying. They have not developed the adult concept of time, place, and to evaluate what occurs in consideration of personal beliefs and values. Young children especially become very confused under adult interrogation by lawyers, social workers, and Family reporters etc. A small child would have little ability to differentiate between what occurred three weeks ago and what occurred three months ago. If a child is faced with an adult male exposing his genitalia, a child would most likely be amused and curious rather than offended and appalled as an adult may feel and may not accurately recall where it occurred.

My reference to the hundreds of children being abused and killed every year refers to those children who are placed with abusive biological fathers or are given contact with them, but their complaints and reports of abuse are not believed because its easier to believe sociopathic fathers, highly adept and expertly skilled at lying to and manipulating lawyers and psychiatrists and at blaming mothers for implanting such ideas in their children’s minds.

There are some Family Court Hearings where child abuse has been substantiated by State child protective authorities, and there are police records of domestic violence and DVOs, and witnesses to the abuse, and convictions for pedophilia, yet such evidence has been completely disregarded by Judges and residency and contact awarded to fathers.
I'm sure of course that none of that occurs in your jurisdiction.

[Deleted for abuse]

It's OK, Gooddad, we all know Chaz has lost her argument and is simply lashing out.

According to Chaz,

* All psychological theories are junk science including everything in DSM-IV (except I suppose the bits that she agrees with)
* Children don't lie because the can't lie, they just get 'confused'
* There are hundreds of cases of abusive fathers being awarded custody by the courts without any reference to facts

P.S. Family Law Web Guide - I went to this site and found some pretty balanced and informative articles - thanks for the link!

In response to Pynchme:

"You think 1 in 100 children is an irrelevant figure? Just how many cases would you need before you would think that child safety is the priority in these sorts of cases?"

Thanks for creating a straw man Pynchme... for the record I never said 1 in 100 is an irrelevant figure. Remember Matthew 7:3? "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" Children are 10 times more likely to be abused in a home with a non-biological partner. If you really cared about children you would be spending your time addressing that issue.

"Since there are no mechanisms to guarantee the safety of any children against their abusers..."

Here is the major difference in our thinking. For nanny-staters, just one case of something bad is enough to call for a radical overhaul of an entire system (often benefiting special interest groups - in this case lawyers, counselors, mothers etc.). In doing so, they completely ignore the unintended consequences (and costs) of their actions. For instance, the book Freakonomics, describes how a push to have young children wear seat belts on flights led to many more child deaths. A gold star to anyone who can work out why.

A type I error is seeing abuse where there is none (i.e. a false alarm or false positive), a type II error is a miss - not seeing abuse when it was present. Nanny-staters are often willing to create an unlimited numbers of false positives to ensure there are no misses (i.e. they look for 'guarantees') and thereby totally discount the negative effects of false positives.

"Children should also be interviewed by one non-threatening, trained counselor and those interviews should be recorded so that there can be little chance of charges of improper questioning."

I assume those counselors would be well trained in parental alienation tactics as well as purged of ideological beliefs such as "all biological fathers in contested cases should be suspected of child abuse"?

"If MRAs were really into parenting, they would put the children first "

It's difficult to parent when you don't ever see your children. On the other hand, the shared parenting council of Australia seems to be putting a lot of effort into helping people transition to a shared care environment. As the right of a child to have both parents in his or her life becomes the norm there will be more and more resources on the 'how to' of shared care.

"The good fathers would also be distancing themselves from abusive males and having some sort of screening for detecting unwholesome characters and directing them to some sort of counseling help or educational support group."

Oh, I see, could you point me to the site where good mothers distance themselves from abusive females and have some sort of screening for detecting unwholesome characters so I can model my site on that one?

Stew ~ "Family Law Web Guide - I went to this site and found some pretty balanced and informative articles - thanks for the link!".
ROFL ~ I am reminded of the old adage "and Fools seldom disgree"....
Under a pretext of impartial and balanced presentation, FLWG is the mouthpiece of male supremacism and promoting the rights of abusive fathers.
"I assume those counselors would be well trained in parental alienation tactics as well as purged of ideological beliefs such as "all biological fathers in contested cases should be suspected of child abuse"? - Psychiatrists/psychologists/Family Reporters/ICLs are not qualified, trained, or experienced in competently investigating child abuse and domestic violence and assessing the risk to children, yet they are frequently allowed to present such testimony in Family Courts which is blatantly `Outside of their area of expertise'. As such, Judges should properly declare such evidence as inadmissible ~ I know of no case where this has occurred and indeed Judges give credence to their every word. Strange though how they are all knowledgeable in the misbegotten and discredited theory of PAS.
"As the right of a child to have both parents in his or her life becomes the norm there will be more and more resources on the 'how to' of shared care." ~ with no qualification whatsoever regarding whether that parent has taken any previous interest in the child or and acted as a good and caring parent, or whether that parent has abused the child either directly or indirectly by abusing their partner in front of the children, or has a sociopathic disorder, and/or a serious criminal record of violence, and /or has persistently evaded financial maintenance of the child or is drug dealing/addicted and/or has been convicted of child molestation and peadophiliac behaviour, yet according to the SPC, the FWLG, and the FR groups such parents are essential to the welfare and wellbeing of children.
How little they value the safety and proection of children.... but then, children are only goods and chattels and their personal possessions according to the FR groups, FWLG and the SPC.

@ChazP: explain what healthy reason an adult male would have for looking at photographs of naked children

Because when it comes to sex, healthy adult males love variety and novelty. Part of their genetic programming is to seek it out. They don't always sick with it once the novelty wears off.

@ChazP: Do not people who watch War movies have a pre-disposition towards violence

As far as I am aware, there is no strong evidence one way or the other.

@Severin: You believe that biology has a greater import for a child than protecting said child from possible sexual predation of a parent who engages in viewing child porn?

Yes. Its like vaccines. There is a risk the vaccine will kill the kid, yet we vaccinate. A father who looks at child porn may be at higher risk of abusing his kids, but you are assuming the increase outweighs the benefits of having the biological father around. Do you have some evidence, or is it just a wild ass guess?

@Severin: How do you view adoptive parents - less able than biological parents?

Not less able. But certainly less willing on average to support kids, and more willing on average to exploit them.

@Severin: Very strange, very warped.

Not at all. Just reporting what the statistics show. What would be strange and warped is someone dening those conclusions, given how clear stats are on the subject.

@CJ Morgan: consumers of child pornography and their defenders seem oblivious to the fact that the production of pornography using children constitutes abuse in which consumers are complicit since they create the demand for the odious product.

No one is defending child pornography. Looking at pictures is not remotely similar to sexually abusing kids no matter how obnoxious the pictures, yet there is an obvious attempt here to equate the two. Money does not drive child porn and more than money drives knitting. Sure, participants of both have found they can make a little money on the side by selling their wares, but take it away and the "hobby" continues.

@CJ Morgan: With respect to the case under discussion, the father not only sought out, downloaded and reproduced child pornography, but also was inclined to invite his daughter into his bed.

Yes, the child porn is not a good look. But as far as I can tell, it was one of the few solid facts in the case. The rest were just allegations from the mother. It seems the judge wasn't inclined to take statements from either side at face value. If the case was fought with the same degree of rancour as displayed here, I'd say that is sensible.

@ChazP: so a 30 second act of donating sperm (ok girls I exaggerate on the time involved but I do sometimes have to protect their fragile little ego's) qualifies a male to absolute right and entitlement over a child.

Nope. Not even close. What makes the biological mother the most important person in a kids like is also what makes the biological father the second most important. They are, on average, the two individuals most willing to put time and money into raising the kid.

@ChazP: What also seems to be overlooked is that `Biological fathers' go on to become the step-fathers

You've lost it. I am a biological father, and I didn't "go on" to do any of those things. On the contrary, the presence of the biological father prevents those things from happening.

While we are on the topic, I was surprised to hear the other day of a study done on 50 year old women. It appears having the mother doing a poor job (as opposed to the father) correlates with mental disease, which is expected. What wasn't expected was above average coping skills and well being correlated not with the mother, but with father doing a good job. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2010/2843914.htm#transcript

@Stev, @Pynchme: It is nice to see some can still have a civil discussion on this topic, with a fair attempt to weave some logic into the debate.

rstuart ~ "Because when it comes to sex, healthy adult males love variety and novelty. Part of their genetic programming is to seek it out. They don't always sick with it once the novelty wears off."
You are stating that every healthy adult male in Australia engages in looking at photographs of naked children for sexual novelty and variety reasons!. I'd very much like to be a fly on the wall when you make this statement public in a pub or golf club. I would suggest you are making the worst possible insult to every adult male in Australia.
(rstuart ~ " I am a biological father, and I didn't "go on" to do any of those things. On the contrary, the presence of the biological father prevents those things from happening" ~ perhaps the Tasmanian Family Court case throws more accurate light on this if you want ti judge by individual instances.

Media report ".The court heard that Mr Rivas's youngest daughter had, at the age of three, posed for "disturbing" pornographic photographs, found on the memory card of a digital camera. The photographs were taken in 2008, apparently by the girl's six-year-old sister. The girl was posed for sexual intercourse. All nine photographs were graphic, and "deliberately focused on the genital region". Of the six-year-old who took the photos, a psychologist said: "Unless she has directly witnessed sexual intercourse in this manner, knowledge of that posture would be beyond her ".....the man's stepdaughter, who was four when her mother married the man and is now 19, told the court he flicked through pornographic magazines while her mother was out.

He began molesting her when she was nine, she said. He would wait for her mother to attend gun club meetings in Launceston on Wednesday nights, before telling her "you have been such a good girl tonight, you can have a reward" and putting his penis in her mouth."

Perhaps you can explain how biological fathers are different from step fathers.!. Is it only the different methods of child sexual abuse they commit?.

“Fathers’ absence from families is said to cause a wide range of social problems, from crime to poor school achievement. Certainly children raised in two-parent families do better on measures of educational achievement and psychological adjustment than children raised in single-parent families. But the research also shows that neither fatherlessness nor divorce by themselves determine children’s well-being.” (M.Flood 2003. pp. 23-26). “One of the most significant influences on children’s well-being is the quality of parenting and family relationships.” – Flood.

Note no differentiation is made between whether the intact two-parent families contain a biological father or a step father. But the most important point is that the absence of the biological father has little, if any, effect on a child’s well-being or development. Other factors have far more impact.

This clearly shows the `logic' of rstuart et al, is more than a little flawed and irrational.

From a personal point of view, the thought of having a sexual relationship with my daughter is grotesque. I know this because I am a father and I care for my own flesh and blood. If you are not a father, how can you possibly know that feeling or be judgmental in who would and who wouldn't? A step father would not have the same attachment as a real father and therefore be less caring. ChazP, you know nothing of the subject matter you speak.

ChazP,

Judith Dunn is MRC Research Professor at the Institute of Psychiatry in London.

A developmental psychologist, she has conducted extensive longitudinal research on children's close relationships, including siblings and friends, on nonshared experiences within the family, on the development of social understanding, and most recently on family transitions and the impact of family change, at Cambridge University, Pennsylvania State University and University of London.

She has conducted a large-scale study of parental separation and child outcome framed within the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. A particular interest is children's perspectives on family transitions and family processes more generally. Among numerous honours she has received the Award for Distinguished Scientific Contributions to Child Development from the Society for Research in Child Development and recently the G. Stanley Hall Award for Distinguished Contribution to Developmental Psychology.

She is a Fellow of the British Academy and the Academy of Medical Sciences. She was a Fellow of King'sCollege, Cambridge and is currently a Fellow of King's College London. She has published 18 books and over 200 papers.

Professor Dunn undertook a study containing a sample of 10,000 families who lived without a father in the household after separation. She found that in EVERY case that the children performed poorly at school, had social behavioural issues and many had committed suicide. She stressed the importance of a father figure in the household.

ChazP, this is the hard evidence. Not the fantasy you present

@ChazP: Media report ... Perhaps you can explain how biological fathers are different from step fathers.!. Is it only the different methods of child sexual abuse they commit?

I'll repeat what pelican said above:

@pelican: If I read an article about a mob of deadbeat mothers who are heroin addicted during pregancy and birth and inflict awful pain on their newborn child, am I immediately going to think all women are deadbeats?

Apparently pelican, you do if you are ChazP.

@ChazP: This clearly shows the `logic' of rstuart et al, is more than a little flawed and irrational

The passage you quoted did not mention biological fathers. Whatever information you divined from it about biological fathers came from your own imagination, ChazP. By the looks of it your imagination is a pretty dark place.

Goodad ~ you and [deleted for abuse and commenter suspended for three days for repeat abuse] rstuart see the world from your own myopic and narrow perspective of your personal feelings and experiences. (You would claim no doubt that every biological father in Australia is exactly like you). I have to tell you that not all biological fathers feel and behave towards their children in the same way as you claim to do. It may come as a surprise to you to know that some biological fathers do sexually abuse their daughters (and their step daughters) and in many instances have even killed them. Ah but you say, step fathers and live-in lovers do it more often than we do. I don't think your fine distinction between them matters to a sexually abused or dead child. I really think you have little knowledge of the world and its ways.
Dunn's research is saying exactly the same as Floods - the absence of a father figure (whether biological, step-father or de facto - note Dunn makes no distinction) does affect children's development and educational performance but other factors such as the quality of parenting and the quality of the relationship between the parents have far greater effect on children. i.e. poor parenting and domestic violence have far greater impact on a child than the absence of a father. DOH!.

RStuart<" @ChazP: explain what healthy reason an adult male would have for looking at photographs of naked children
Because when it comes to sex, healthy adult males love variety and novelty. Part of their genetic programming is to seek it out. They don't always sick with it once the novelty wears off."

Really? Can I ask the other adult males on this site if they think it is 'healthy' looking up child pornography?

Did you for one minute think of the children who were used to make these pictures?
I didn't think so.

ChazP,

The word myopic is one that describes your views not mine. It's not difficult to see who is biased and harbours covert prejudices on this site. That person is you ChazP.
Flood is a sociologist and studies society. Dunn is a world respected Psychiatrist and is far more qualified to comment on the various effects on the human adult brain and indeed the brain of a chid and behaviour. ChazP, you are not comparing aples with apples. You are spinning an arguement to suit your biased opinion.
On a final note, you have little knowledge about my own personal feelings and experiences, therefore why do you comment as though you do? You also state.."(You would claim no doubt that every biological father in Australia is exactly like you)". This is an irrational comment made by a desperate person searching for rationale that does not exist in your illogical and poorly constructed arguement.

Intact 2 parent families: 1,621,483 (69.1%)
Step/blended families: 103,424 (4.4%)

Total 2 parent families - 1,825,952 (77.8%)

Lone mother: 450,679 (19.2%)
Lone father: 69,495 ( 3%)

Total 1 parent families - 520,174 (22.2%)

http://www.education.vic.gov.au/researchinnovation/vcams/parents/24-3livingintwoandoneparent.htm

Population just between ages 0-14 = 4,000,000 children.

Mayo clinic compiled studies:
17 - 31 % of females under age 17 sexually abused.
7 - 16 % of males under age 17 sexually abused.

Therefore, of Australian children 0-14:
340,000 to 620,000 female children and
140,000 to 320,000 male children
Total: 480,000 to 940,000 of children up to 14 years old (plus population aged 14-17) will have experienced sexual abuse by age 17.

"21% of the females and 44% of the males experienced repetitive assaults"

"Studies and case reports indicate that 30% to 80% of individuals
who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals
who were arrested for Internet child pornography had molested
a child."

"Fifty percent of offenses committed against children younger than 6 years were committed by a family member, as were 42% of acts committed
against children 6 to 11 years old and 24% against children 12 to 17 years old.2 The study by Abel and Harlow15 found that 68% of “child molesters” had molested a family member; 30% had molested a stepchild, a foster child, or an adopted child; 19% had molested 1 or more of their bio-logic children; 18% had molested a niece or nephew; and 5% had molested a grandchild."

http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/82/4/457.full

Kim C. From fantasy to reality: the link between viewing child pornography and molesting children. Child Sexual Exploitation Update. 2004;1(no. 3). Available at: www.ndaa.org/. Accessed February 19, 2007.

I don't understand why people here are minimizing the issue of child pornography trying to normalize it.

I don't understand why good men are not offended, much less outraged, at OTHER MEN who do these things. These offenders are representing masculinity because other males ignore, minimize or deny - effectively giving silent assent to it's continuance.

In no other realm is the over used adage more applicable: "If you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem."

Rstuart claims that a healthy adult male likes variety in sex - I don't have an issue with that, healthy adult females also enjoy visual imagery and variety in sexual enjoyment.

However, from what I understand of my own species, sexual interest in children be it from simple observation through to actual sexual interaction with children is not a 'healthy adult' perspective. There are good evolutionary reasons for this - children are neither mentally nor physically able to engage in an equally consensual sexual relationships. This includes posing for explicit images for the delectation of adult males.

I would love a quick poll on male contributors to OLO as to whether they consider viewing child porn as part of their "genetic programming".

Further insult to male responsibility have been the claims that biological fathers are responsible for the care and well-being of their children, but adoptive fathers aren't.

Again I would be interested to hear from male posters as to whether they agree that this claim is true. If so where does this leave the children of divorced and remarried men - do they neglect their step-children while doting on their biological offspring?

Could some real men step forward and respond to the claims by Rstuart, et al that:

1. Viewing child porn is acceptable.

2. That non-biological fathers are a danger to children.

I don't believe the above to be true. The men I know love and care for the well-being of their own children and others as well as the well-being of their partners.

Severin, for what it is worth I do not regard it as normal or acceptable to view child pornography. I do think that there is a higher likelihood that a person would sexually abuse a step-child than their own child. I don't think in most households it is a high risk in either case, but it obviously does happen.

I for one have been disturbed by some of rstuart's recent posts that seek to defend child pornography and to distort the published facts about the case that is the subject of the original article. One thing that disturbs me is that I've generally found rstuart to be a reasonable and intelligent participant in OLO discussions, such that if he can condone child pornography and placing a child in danger of sexual abuse, then what do the knuckledragging misogynists really think?

<< Because when it comes to sex, healthy adult males love variety and novelty. Part of their genetic programming is to seek it out. >>

That sort of reasoning could be used to justify any form of sexual behaviour at all, including child sexual abuse, incest and rape. Also, as Severin points out and in my own experience, healthy adult females also love variety and novelty in sex. In fact, I'd go so far to say that the majority of healthy adults enjoy variety and novelty in sex, but that in no way justifies the sexual exploitation of children, of which child pornography is one manifestation.

I'm also bothered by this:

<< Yes, the child porn is not a good look. But as far as I can tell, it was one of the few solid facts in the case. The rest were just allegations from the mother. >>

If rstuart's bothered to read the court proceedings that have been linked to numerous times at OLO, then that's just untrue. The elder daughter daughter made allegations about his invitations to join him in his bed, where he would pester her. The father had previously been subject to a court order specifically banning that activity, but he had resumed it - which is the major reason the daughter didn't want to stay overnight at his place.

However, the Judge made an order that forces these young girls to stay overnight against their wishes with a convicted consumer of child pornography, who apparently likes to sleep with young girls. As a "biological father" of two daughters, I think the Judge erred, badly.

GY

Your response is very much appreciated. We know that both biological and non-biological in the majority are good parents - to draw a marked distinction between adoptive and biological parents is not conducive to establishing safe environments for our children. That a non-biological parent is more likely to abuse a child is very debatable, I do not have sufficient information to make a blanket judgement on such a view. As with most issues of life it is very much an individual situation. I am sure most men would agree that they are no more likely to abuse other children than their own.

Like CJ Morgan, I have become increasingly concerned by the attempt to whitewash the incidence of viewing child porn by a few of the posters to OLO. Therefore, I have to consider that this few may well represent a view among a minority of determined men who wish to retain their perceived 'rights' to sexual variety by exploiting the family courts and custody arrangements.

The opinions that have been revealed since OLO's publishing of Patricia Merkin's article have been disturbing to say the least. I wonder if it is possible for people directly involved in child welfare be encouraged to submit some evidence based articles on this issue.

Another two interesting points drawn from this and similar threads are:

1. The persistent blanket denigration of single mothers (be they divorced, widowed, unmarried etc).

2. The accusations against stepfathers and adoptive parents.

The pattern I see (which is open to debate) is one of a minority, but nevertheless influential, lobbying for male parental control irrespective of the welfare of women, children and other men.

'could some real men step forward and respond to the claims by Rstuart, et al'

'I don't understand why good men are not offended, much less outraged, at OTHER MEN who do these things. These offenders are representing masculinity because other males ignore, minimize or deny - effectively giving silent assent to it's continuance.'

Of course, as a 'real man', I am only too keen to allow myself to be bullied into apologising for my gender.

As a real man, I am also happy to validate the all pervasive feminist idea that since I am male I must therefore agree with the comments put forward by all other males if I fail to comment on them. We're all one you know. Every other man's sin is really my sin.

A similar pressure to denounce the likes of ChazP is about as abundant as the phrase 'be a woman'.

Ah what a joy it must be living in the skin of the 'benefit of the doubt' gender, knowing you're full of all that motherly goodness, never having to apologise for or denounce or distance yourself from the sins of people you don't know just because you have the same genitals.

@Pynchme: I don't understand why people here are minimizing the issue of child pornography trying to normalize it.

Because looking at pictures is essentially a thought crime, and we are actively prosecuting men for thought crimes. The Simpsons cartons example clearly shows this is the case. In other words, because you find the very idea of a man looking at a picture you dislike revolting, you want him thrown in jail. You evidently find that acceptable. I don't.

Nor do I find it acceptable to separate men from their children because of thought crimes. On the basis of them committing real crimes, certainly. On a psychologists assessment that a persons behaviour means there is a high probability they will commit a crime in the future - perhaps. On the basis the man crossing some imaginary line of political correctness line born out of a moral panic - absolutely not. Regardless of how disgusting you think the males private behaviour is, in this case if he does not harm his kids it doesn't matter. To put it in stark terms: no matter how sickening you find his behaviour, if it effects no one else the correct solution is for you to not think about it, not start penalising the man for your thoughts.

From my point of view, I suspect you know your assertion that looking at pictures normalises what they depict is wrong yet you mischievously rely on it to get things you things you find unpleasant banned. And the assertion that recording an activity in writing or in pictures somehow normalises it is obviously wrong. That iconic picture http://jamblichus.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/napalm.jpg of a young girl running naked from a napalmed Vietnam village did not "normalise" war - quite the reverse. The remarkable thing is if that picture was not so iconic, it would join the Simpsons cartoons as child pornography. I am sure some die hard paedophiles do get off looking at it, and surely you find that thought unpleasant, so shouldn't it be banned?

Severin, Pynchme's link to the Mayo Clinic report appears to validate the statistically higher chance that a step-parent, adoptive or foster parent will abuse a child. The maths suggest 50% more likely, but as I suspect there is a higher proportion of children living with both biological parents than with a step parent etc the percentage would probably be higher.

It also references a Canadian study which mentions the high likelihood of a step-parent or neighbour being the molester - Bagley et al 1994.

Fits with my perception that someone who was the biologic parent would feel a closer bond than someone who wasn't, making the taboo less strong. Coupled to that you have the fact that pedophiles will try to put themselves in a position where they have access to children, making step-parenthood attractive to some of them.

GY, did you also see the statistics from the Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect conducted by the US Department of Health and Human Services? Children living with a biological parent and non-biological partner are 10 times more likely to be abused. There is clear and convincing evidence that children are more at risk in single parent households and when living with non-biological adults.

However, you must admire the way that the twisted feminist "logic" of Severin attempts to distort these findings:

"Another two interesting points drawn from this and similar threads are:

1. The persistent blanket denigration of single mothers...

2. The accusations against stepfathers and adoptive parents."

Facts become "blanket denigrations and accusations", rather than something to be acknowledged and integrated into policy decisions. Similarly, isolated anecdotes become problems of epidemic proportions whenever there is a chance to bash the male of the species.

Contrast this with the pro-fathers on this thread who have no problem acknowledging that some biological fathers are pedophiles and should be kept away from children (I estimate that around 1% of all children will be sexually abused by their biological father while under the age of 15 according to the Australian Personal Safety Survey given to us by Pynchme).

I do, however, thank Severin for acknowledging that most parents are good parents. This is exactly the reason I support a presumption of shared care.

An interesting debate is whether a custody case that proceeds to court should automatically violate the presumption of shared care. I agree with Pynchme that highly contested cases are not in the best interests of the children and are a form of child abuse by one or both parents.

However, if contested court cases somehow create a bias towards one gender or the other, litigants of the favored gender will quickly be advised by their lawyers to abandon settlement attempts and proceed to court, thus creating a perverse incentive for more conflict. It seems to me that a presumption of shared care reduces conflict and is thus in the best interests of the child.

'However, if contested court cases somehow create a bias towards one gender or the other, litigants of the favoured gender will quickly be advised by their lawyers to abandon settlement attempts and proceed to court, thus creating a perverse incentive for more conflict. '

Bingo. Hence the noise from people like the Author. It's exactly what they want. The thin edge of the wedge to bringing women back to their rightful place as the default option for custody. Any men who wants anything to do with children should rightfully be 'under suspicion', until he can prove himself otherwise. Possibly by 'being a man' and apologising for his gender perhaps.

Start with the few paedophile dads and extrapolate in an attempt to roll back any efforts and gains men have made to be recognised as a tiny bit more than mere furniture in their children's lives.

@Severin: sexual interest in children be it from simple observation through to actual sexual interaction with children is not a 'healthy adult' perspective.

I didn't say it was a healthy activity, any more than I would say driving cars too fast is healthy or smoking is healthy. What I do say is it is normal for healthy men to explore all those things.

@Severin: That non-biological fathers are a danger to children.

No one made an absolute statement like that. But many posters here, both male and female, have pointed out that non-biological fathers are more of a danger to kids than biological fathers. What's more, they have backed up their points with what look to me to be hard stats.

It looks to me you are reading this relative statement as an absolute one that in effect says kids in general are better off without non-biological father. I don't see anybody here claiming that to be so. Well, with the possible exception of ChazP.

@CJ Morgan: That sort of reasoning could be used to justify any form of sexual behaviour at all,

Rubbish. It does justify treating fast car driving as a misdemeanour. It doesn't justify that same behaviour killing someone, and we don't treat it that way. Compared to viewing child porn it is an extreme case as driving at 120 in a suburban street will almost certainly get someone killed one day, yet we still don't treat it anywhere like man slaughter. There is no evidence looking at child porn will cause the viewer to abuse children. None, zero, zilch. Yet you want to vilify the people who do it, treat them the same was as paedophiles. Sadly, the majority of society agrees with you, because it is now accepted practice to call people who only look at pictures paedophiles.

(cont'd...)

(...cont'd)

Vilifying such a minor crime just cheapens the word. It already has. When you see someone accused of being a paedophile in the paper, the first thought that springs to my mind is "gee, was he looking at Simpons cartoons or was he a catholic priest who serially abused children for 20 years". The latter is social disaster, but it is much more likely to be the former. That is thanks largely to reactions like yours, here.

@CJ Morgan: If rstuart's bothered to read the court proceedings that have been linked to numerous times at OLO

You want me to indulge in second guessing on the judge's opinion on the credibility of the evidence presented. I wasn't there, and I am not going to. If I thought for a second the judge knew with some degree of certainty the father was a danger to his kids and then made the ruling, then I would join the current lynch mob. But I don't, and what is more I don't see anybody else claiming that either.

You on the other hand have read the highly polarised reporting this case and drawn your own conclusions on the credibility of the evidence. Well fine, but to denounce me because I don't join you in this is unreasonable.

As it happens, from what I saw of the judges ruling a fair attempt was made at balancing the possibility the father might be a danger to his kids versus possibility he was not and denying the kids access to their father was damaging. If you make the reasonable assumption the judge had no idea how far both sides were stretching the truth, it looked like a good effort under difficult circumstances to me.

'it looked like a good effort under difficult circumstances to me.'

Oh come on. I bet he was eating dinner when children were being molested. Just like that Police Chief when the bush fires were burning. You're way too soft.

Gooddad, you've raged against the crux of this as you called it, trashy piece of journalism, but you've missed the point.
The Family Court is not willing to stop contact between a child and their father even when he is clearly a deviant child porn user. So if you believe, due to your own personal experience of injustice, that the family court is 'biased' against fathers, then you are betraying yourself and instead, shot your own foot when you claim inhumane treatment. No-where have you bothered to reflect on the inhumane treatment of children where its pretty obvious clear that they'r forced to see a sexually abusive father. I read between the lines, and your personal experience, in light of the contact culture in FC, betrays you.

Peterr, [deleted for abuse]
I have read the article about 7 times. [Deleted] I’ll walk you through it. The author introduces the subject matter by stating, “A recent decision by the Family Court of Australia suggests that it is out of touch with general community standards and reveals that the law needs further amendments”.
Then the author launches into the “reproduction of child exploitation material”. The author then uses this isolated incident (which fathers groups do not condone in any way, shape or form) to justify a complete change of family law and a fair attack I might add on fathers gaining custody of their children in general. The inference of the article is to basically impose her opinion on the reader by implying that one father has child pornography, therefore all fathers have child pornography that’s the end of equal custody. No trial, no hearing, done! The majority of the article is a rant on how fathers groups are this and that. Capped off by a selective quote from our favorite sociologist M. Flood and retiring Judge Carmody, who claims that the shared parenting laws have ruined his life! If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen I say. Therefore, the article is very selective and not impartial. Mr Flood is a seasoned anti father campaigner.
The author’s entire argument for a change in family law is unreliable and unconvincing. The suggestion that one father does so therefore all fathers do is brittle and incredulous and would be dissected in seconds by a competent barrister in a court room. A more plausible article would have given a realistic balance between mothers and fathers and the benefits for the children of the former relationship to share the love of both parents. Therefore, it is poor and erroneous journalism.
[Deleted]

Peterr hit the nail on the head with his comment above.
No one has ever said that NO father should have shared custody of their children on this site as far as I know.

Most right-minded people are simply say that THIS father who was so obviously a bit of a deviant in THIS one case should not have been given unsupervised custody of his daughter.

The fact that he was given unsupervised custody should send alarm bells ringing and serve to ensure it never happens in a court again.

>>> The fact that he (the father found guilty of possessing child pornography) was given unsupervised custody should send alarm bells ringing and serve to ensure it never happens in a court again. <<<

Exactly, Suzeonline.

Instead we have watched people attempt to:

Justify the viewing of child porn.
Vilify non biological fathers.
Denigrate the mother of the children in Patricia Merkin's article.

A thread filled with abuse and hatred.

None of the above mentioned goes towards protecting children from abuse and exploitation.

There is no demarcation between biological and non biological parents, people give birth to children, divorce, remarry, adopt children from previous relationships and have more biological children of their own - as Chazp has stated quite clearly.

That the people vilifying 'stepdads' and 'single/estranged mothers' all the while trying to justify viewing child porn as simply part of the diversity of adult sexuality, leaves me completely at a loss. What hope do children and truly loving parents have when, as the entire point of this article, children are left in the exclusive care of a person with proven and demonstrated paedophile tendencies?

rstuart - I'm afraid I can't keep up with your idiosyncratic logic. In this thread you've compared commercial production of child pornography with knitting, and men who actively seek out child pornography with those who drive their cars too fast.

You also claim that men who actively seek out child pornography are doing nothing wrong, while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge that the children who are the objects of it are harmed in its production.

Your interpretation of the court proceedings of the case that is the subject of the OP is selective, to say the least. You give absolutely no consideration to the testimony and wishes of the little girl who didn't want to stay overnight with her father because of his aberrant behaviour, which you simply ignore.

You are now attacking those of us who abhor child pornography. I really hope you don't have young children living in your house.

@CJ Morgan: commercial production of child pornography

My point was child pornography isn't produced for commercial reasons, and yet since you continue to insist it is it seems you missed it entirely. It does look to be the only justification you have for your position, so I presume you cling to it for that reason.

The internet has brought an indisputable rise in the availability of all porn, including child porn. During that time crimes against women and children have dropped. Yet if your myth were true crimes against kids must go up.

@CJ Morgan: You give absolutely no consideration to the testimony and wishes of the little girl

I do consider it, but I am a pleb reading a written transcript and I know my limitations. When I weigh the likelihood of me getting it right versus a judge with years of experience listening to liars and shysters, and who was there at the time and got to watch the faces and body language as the evidence was delivered, I'll take the judges opinion every time. If there was someone here offering an opinion who had the same depth of experience as the judge that would be different. But there isn't. There is just a lynch mob pushing their political barrows.

@CJ Morgan: I really hope you don't have young children living in your house.

Low blow. Like you, I personally find child porn very distasteful. Like you, if I thought distributing pictures caused child abuse, I would want it banned. But unlike you I am not prepared to jump to that conclusion simply because I find the pictures distasteful. I want to see evidence first. This is because, apparently unlike you, I am prepared to defend the right of everybody to do what the dammed well please in private, if it effects nobody else. Taking that stand would be a shallow exercise I only choose to defend things I personally approve of.

What is the definition of child pornography in the subject jurisdiction? Would it include for instance a nude photograph of a woman who could be taken as being under 18 years?

rstuart <" Like you, if I thought distributing pictures caused child abuse, I would want it banned. But unlike you I am not prepared to jump to that conclusion simply because I find the pictures distasteful. I want to see evidence first. This is because, apparently unlike you, I am prepared to defend the right of everybody to do what the dammed well please in private, if it effects nobody else."

You are one sick puppy rstuart! Are you serious? Do you honestly think the children posing or acting in child pornography material could possibly 'enjoy' it? Do you think it wouldn't affect them? Really?

If we don't stop the supply of this disgusting material at it's source, then kids will never be safe.

Are you suggesting that if we, as adults want to, for example, kill someone in a mad orgy and film it for other people's 'viewing pleasure', that this should be fine in a free society?

Of course not, because that is illegal.
So is child pornography.

@suzeonline: Do you honestly think the children posing or acting in child pornography material could possibly 'enjoy' it?

I guess if nothing else your comment illustrates just how much difficulty some have with separating pictures from the act being photographed. Actually, no one could be that thick, so I am guessing imagine you are just stubbornly refusing to acknowledge a difference exists.

Still, it's pretty amazing, given how obvious the difference is. If you looked at this video of innocent people being mowed down by 30 calibre machine gun fire, you would be rather taken aback if I then accused you of murdering someone. http://www.collateralmurder.com/ Yet you apparently feel perfectly comfortable of accusing someone looking at child porn of being a paedophile.

The comment of yours I quoted is just plain wrong as well - another wild exaggeration. As a rule pre-pubescent kids feel no more uncomfortable having their pictures taken naked than when they fully clothed. Accusing people taking happy snaps of partially clothed kids of abusing them, or indeed locking sexting teenagers on the same premise is just absurd. Yet that is how far you and your kind are apparently prepared to stretch things to make your point.

So, since you lot continually accuse me of supporting paedophilia, I'll spell out the distinction. Paedophilia is someone sexually abusing kids. No one here condones that, and frankly you accusing me condoning it borders on slander. Taking pictures, particularly of kids clearly isn't abuse as it doesn't harm them.

Now I will another statement that will undoubtedly bring you all back, baying for more of my blood. We are better off if the paedophiles do take pictures of their crimes. To see why, think of how much easier the police's job would be if every criminal distributed photographs of themselves committing their crimes on the internet. And yet, by some perverted twisted logic, you want to shut this down by accusing people who look at those pictures of committing the crimes depicted.

If you think this is helping kids, you have rocks in your head.

Rstuart

I am amazed you are still standing, missing all limbs and now apparently your head.

I will carefully state the following:

Taking pornographic images of children is illegal.

Possessing pornographic images of children is illegal.

Distributing pornographic images is, by default, illegal.

The reason is because children are exploited to create said images. Which means children are psychologically and/or physically harmed by this behaviour.

Capiche?

@Severin: The reason is because children are exploited to create said images.

No, that almost certainly isn't the case, and I have already explained why so why repeat it and expect me to accept it?

The children are exploited because some pervert wants to have sex with them. End of story. That he takes pictures of it so he can share them and brag about his exploits with his mates is almost a side issue.

You seem to imagine there is some huge market in child porn, with people making millions in the style portrayed in Underbelly. There isn't. That is probably because of every country on the planet being so intolerant of people abusing kids, making the risks enormous. We penalise paedophiles more than drug trafficers. It just isn't worth the money.

The interesting thing for me is if you do believe child porn is made for money, then the obvious solution is to only make trading pictures of naked kids for money illegal. This has the nice side effect of exempting the legitimate reasons for taking pictures of naked kids - happy snaps, sexting and so on. It still has a couple of nasty side effects. I don't know how obviously legitimate activities like those of Bill Henson would fare under such a regime. But still, it would be much better than what we have now.

So, Severin would you accept making viewing child porn legal provided the pictures aren't bought and sold? It does fix the "children are abused to make money" issue as much as it can be, and does mean we can take happy snaps or ourselves, family and friends without having to worry about being accused of being a paedophile. But I suspect you will baulk at the idea. Your issue really isn't the kids, that is just a convenient foil. Its those shudders of disgust you get when you think about those fifthly old men getting off on naked pictures of kids. Well there is an easy solution for that. Don't let your imagination go there, and don't blame others if it does.

Severin, I think we are flogging a dead horse here!

rstuart, we aren't talking about 'happy snaps' of naked children taken by relatives or friends of these children.

We are talking about child PORNOGRAPHY.
It is now, and will always be, illegal in all it's forms.

Anyone who doesn't agree with that is as sick as the paedophiles.
You need to get some help.

I am done arguing with you on this.
Have a wonderful day....

I agree that rstuart's obtuseness about child pornography appears to be intractable. While images of naked children are not in themselves necessarily pornographic or harmful to the children involved, the act of uploading them to a porno website for the sexual gratification of others is considered unacceptable in our society, and is reflected in the laws against such activities.

On the other hand, images of children engaged in overtly sexual behaviour are not only pornographic, but inherently involve child sexual abuse in their production. To absolve consumers of such vile material of any responsibility for its production, as rstuart does, indicates an amorality that is unacceptable where kids are involved. Further, his repeated claim that child pornography isn't produced for profit is quite bizarre, given the number of offenders who are regularly caught by tracing their credit card details.

While rstuart is entitled to his opinions and to express them, I am very pleased that if he were to be detected putting them into practice in Australia he would be charged with offences that the community takes very seriously indeed. I certainly wouldn't let any of my kids and grandkids within cooee of anyone who expressed such views.

rstuart may regard my comments in this regard as a "low blow", but I am quite sincere in my concern for any children with whom he has unsupervised contact, given his demonstrated attitude to child pornography.

However, I agree that he is intransigent on this subject and that there is little point in continuing this argument with him. Mind you, if he is in the habit of putting his odious ideas into practice, I sincerely hope that he is apprehended and charged as soon as possible, for the sake of the kids who are exploited by him and other consumers of child porn.

CJ & Suzeonline

>> ...I agree that he (Rstuart) is intransigent on this subject and that there is little point in continuing this argument with him. Mind you, if he is in the habit of putting his odious ideas into practice, I sincerely hope that he is apprehended and charged as soon as possible, for the sake of the kids who are exploited by him and other consumers of child porn. <<

The reason, further back on this thread, I asked others to comment on this spurious justification of child porn by Rstuart and another regular poster to OLO, was to make clear that such views are not acceptable by the majority of people - for the bleeding obvious reason that the production of porn is harmful to children - let alone the existence of such creating greater demand and the entire issue of paedophilia and illegal porn growing exponentially.

Rstuart, you again, are digging yourself into an untenable position, adding personal insults does you no service. That there are men like you who claim not to be paedophiles but have no issue with child pornography is reprehensible.

You have nothing to add that is of any worth regarding this issue.

I shall not waste any more time with the likes of you.

I get the impression you three have to given up trying to debate whether looking at child porn actually harms anybody. Yes, I know you continue insist that it must somehow cause more children to be molested, but equally I guess difficult to sustain that while knowing harms to kids have dropped as the availability has gone up.

It is understandable you find it impossible to put aside the feelings of disgust this issue fills you with, but nonetheless at this point I am dammed glad I live in Australia. In a society less tolerant of free speech I am sure some of you would be petitioning to have me locked away for the sake of the children, and would have a fair chance of achieving it. After all, I can remember the time not more than a few decades ago when, right here in Australian, when locking someone away because their sexual preference was "considered unacceptable in our society", as CJ put it, was very much a reality.

@suzeonline: We are talking about child PORNOGRAPHY. It is now, and will always be, illegal in all it's forms.

I guess it will come as no surprise I disagree. I expect that within my lifetime drawn child porn, such as the Simpson cartoons will become legal. That will be the start of a slippery slope. Once you do that, you have implicitly acknowledged, as CJ already has, that looking at pictures of children being molested shouldn't be a crime. (Way to go CJ!) At that point I would hope all pictures where children aren't actually being harmed will become legal.

I agree it is unlikely I will see pictures of real kids being sexually molested will remain illegal for the foreseeable future. The feelings of disgust it raises in the current crop of grandma's and granddad's is just too high. But I expect that too will pass, as historically the outrage you express here mirrors the outrage your great grandparents expressed during other moral panics. Fortunately it seems such outrage is hard to sustain when it is all built on sand.

@CJ Morgan: he would be charged with offences that the community takes very seriously indeed

Since you have all promised to go away and yield the last word to me, I guess I can feel safe in saying that not quite correct. If the sentences imposed by judges reflects how seriously the community takes viewing child porn, then it isn't that serious. Jail terms are rare. It was a bit of a weakness in my argument, as I was almost arguing for status quo. The very case this article is discussing illustrates this.

As a final postscript, it looks to me like the right balance will probably be a small variation on the one I mentioned above. Any trafficing for money of images where serious harms were inflicted in order to make it saleable should be illegal. These men pictures pictures of themselves molesting their children is just one of the example. Snuff films are another. At the other end of the scale, you have these Jackass films. It is a pity you lot could not bring yourself to comment on that, actually.

@rstuart: Snuff films are another.

Turns out I am guilty of propagating a myth. Snuff films don't exist:

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.asp

So much for my "common sense" leading me to think that because there is a proven market for films and movies depicting violence, someone somewhere must have made snuff film's to supply the extreme end of that market.

Quotes from the link:

"All the fretting about it aside, not so much as one snuff film has been found. Time and again, what is originally decried in the press as a film of a murder turns out, upon further investigation, to be a fake. Police on three continents routinely investigate films brought to them, and so far this has always been their verdict. No snuff films.
...
Capturing a murder on film would be foolhardy at best. Only the most deranged would consider preserving for a jury a perfect video record of a crime he could go to the executioner for. Even if he stays completely out of the camera's way, too much of who the killer is, how the murder was carried out, and where it took place would be part of such a film, and these details would quickly lead police to the right door."

Apparently, some paedophiles aren't as smart as murderers.

rstuart: <"If the sentences imposed by judges reflects how seriously the community takes viewing child porn, then it isn't that serious. Jail terms are rare.">

- and that's a social disgrace; indicative of the low regard in which children and their human rights are held.

As to whether or not child porn results in greater abuse. I already provided evidence that most child abusers view child pornography. It is also one of the grooming tools used by child abusers to introduce children to an experience of abuse; supposedly to persuade them that abuse is normal.

At any rate you choose to ignore all of that, so consider this instead: If someone is hungry - do you think their appetite is increased or decreased by looking at pictures of food and/or being surrounded by food even if they are not supposed to have it ?

If someone is thirsty - pictures; sights and sounds of water - increase or decrease their thirst?

Someone addicted to nicotine - does seeing someone smoking increase or decrease their craving?

Alcohol - someone craving a cold beer. Is watching a clip of someone downing a nice cold crownie likely to help them resist beer?

So, if the opportunity comes up for someone to use a child for sex, do you think that someone who finds clips or pics of children being used in such ways sexually titillating is more or less likely to make those fantasies a reality?

Anyone who finds pictures of children or youngsters sexually exciting is a loose cannon.

I imagine that rstuart would think that this creep has been hardly done by:

<< Pedophile jailed over pic of naked girl at South Bank

April 15, 2010 12:10PM

A DANGEROUS child sex predator caught photographing a naked four-year-old girl swimming at Brisbane's South Bank Parklands while on a restrictive court-issued supervision order after raping three girls could be returned into the community in five months time.

Convicted child rapist Graeme Paul Hancock, 25, was today jailed for 18 months after pleading guilty in the Brisbane District Court to one court of indecent treatment of a child under 12 and two of breaching a supervision order.

The court was told Hancock, from Southport on the Gold Coast, had only been out of jail four months for raping and molesting three young girls and was under a Supreme Court-issued supervision order when he was caught photographing the naked child at South Bank in June last year. >>

http://tiny.cc/ubo56

I mean, the 4-year old kid wasn't harmed, was she? It's a travesty of justice!

Rstuart

Are you, in fact, claiming that advertising does not work?

I'd better warn the entire advertising industry to give up, the money they are making is all an illusion.

[Deleted for harassment]

@Pynchme: I already provided evidence that most child abusers view child pornography ... If someone is hungry - do you think their appetite is increased

The link said there is a correlation, and you are now arguing correlation means causation. You are an academic, you must know this is wrong. At least I hope you do.

If there was strong evidence for causation the wikipedia article on the subject would not be so conflicted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse

Your hunger example is probably wrong. It is unlikely pictures of food increase your appetite, as measured by the number of calories you finally consume.

@Pynchme: who finds clips or pics of children being used in such ways sexually titillating is more or less likely to make those fantasies a reality?

We are discussing human behaviour here, and you are in effect saying people behave "logically". They don't. You know this. Logic isn't the main driver behaviour, feelings are.

From http://www.radio.cz/en/article/88189

"Opinions on that differ among sex therapists, but when in the 60s Denmark started to tolerate - not legalize, but only tolerate - child porn the number of abused children significantly decreased."

This is not an outliner. It seems every time a country relaxes restrictions on porn, crimes against those depicted in the porn drop. If were not for evidence like this, I would not be accusing lot of going on the 21st century equivalent of a witch hunt.

@CJ Morgan: I imagine that rstuart would think that this creep has been hardly done by

You imagine wrong. He had what looks like sensible parole conditions putting space between him and potential future victims. He broke them and it was dealt with. Parole conditions forbiding otherwise legal activities are common place. Hackers are told to stay away from computers, flight risks are told to stay away from planes, stalkers are told to stay away from the stalkee. Why would I have a problem with that?

@Severin: Are you, in fact, claiming that advertising does not work?

Nope. I am saying people react very differently to pictures in ads and those of illegal behaviour.

Rstuart

>> @Severin: Are you, in fact, claiming that advertising does not work?

Nope. I am saying people react very differently to pictures in ads and those of illegal behaviour. >>

That's right.

Pictures produced by legit advertisers do not sexually abuse children to obtain their photographs.

That is why possession of and viewing child pornography is illegal.

rstuart is either being disingenuous or obtuse. He has asserted that child pornography should not be illegal, based variously on his claims that the kids that are its objects aren't harmed in its production, or that viewing child pornography is only a "thought crime", or some other such convoluted rationalisation.

In my example, the recidivist paedophile was arrested and charged with indecent treatment of a child under 12, i.e. taking photos of a naked 4-year old girl for the purpose of sexual gratification, in addition to breaking the conditions of his parole.

Either deliberately or inadvertently, rstuart focuses upon the parole breaking and ignores competely the fact that the child abuser was detected and arrested for the indecent treatment offence for which he was charged and convicted - an offence which, according to rstuart's perverse reasoning, shouldn't exist.

Please note that I'm not trying to "harrass" rstuart here, rather I'm trying to keep him honest.

[Deleted and posted suspended for a week]

Severin: Well that must have been one heck of a post - and out of character because I've never read a mean post from Severin.

Wish I'd seen it :(

Looking forward to your return.

I don't feel much like posting now to be honest. Maybe later.

@CJ Morgan: I'm trying to [rstuart] him honest.

It didn't look like anything else to me, CJ. While you on occasion do attack the person rather than discuss the issue at hand, this isn't one of those occasions and I appreciate your attempts to keep it that way.

@CJ Morgan: the recidivist paedophile was arrested and charged with indecent treatment of a child under 12, i.e. taking photos of a naked 4-year old girl for the purpose of sexual gratification

OK, so your issue isn't the parole violation. It is taking the picture. I don't know the circumstances around the case, so lets talk hyperthetically.

There are perfectly good reasons for making taking of pictures illegal, the primary one being invading a persons reasonable expectation of privacy. Let us assume that none of those laws have been violated. Your issue isn't the violation of parole conditions, so let us also assume he is a free man - an ordinary person like you or I who has no legal constraint on his actions. Finally let us assume he wasn't doing anything else illegal at the time, meaning if his camera was replaced by a police officer looking on, he would remain a free man.

So he is taking picture that doesn't invade someone's privacy or reveal a deep secret, and he is not otherwise, apart from taking the picture, doing anything illegal. It becomes a crime in your eyes because he will, in his own private place and time, get off on that picture sexually and it happens to be of a child instead of a horse, man or woman.

This means you are prepared to convict a man on the basis of what he might think, not on what he does. If that is what you believe CJ, I think you are a bigger danger to society than he is.

There is one caveat to this. We currently have a law that says is someone willing appears naked in a public place, they are granted a greater expectation of privacy than a clothed person. I think this is absurd.

Still fudging I see, rstuart. Why talk "hyperthetically" when we have a recent real life example of a child rapist being arrested and convicted for taking pictures of a naked little girl for sexual purposes?

The crime for which he was most recently convicted was "indecent treatment of a child under 12", which in this case constituted the pervert surreptitiously taking pictures of a naked little girl at a beach without parental permission, for the purposes of his sexual gratification. That this behaviour violates community standards is demonstrated by his apprehension at the scene by alert onlookers and security guards, his subsequent arrest by the police and conviction by the court.

It's not the taking of the pictures that is the crime, rather it's the indecent treatment of the kid. Are you suggesting that creeps like this guy should be permitted by the community and the law to pollute public spaces and endanger children with impunity? Who else is going to skulk around around naked children, taking covert pictures, other than someone who gets their jollies from sex with kids?

Of course people should be able to take pictures with appropriate permission, and children (or indeed adults) should also be able to be naked on a beach without being recorded for some sicko's sexual gratification. In this instance, I think both the community and the law worked well in the interests of child safety.

If you have a problem with that, then I think you're almost as much a problem for society as the child abuser in this case, since you're effectively facilitating this pervert's sociopathic sexuality.

P.S. Severin - come back as soon as you can. You'll be missed :(

@CJ Morgan: Are you suggesting that creeps like this guy should be permitted by the community and the law to pollute public spaces and endanger children with impunity?

No. He is a convicted child rapist on parole. Obviously there should be constraints behaviour. But when I made that obvious statement, you said I was fudging. You said I was focusing on the man and his parole instead of his actions at the time.

So in what I thought was a reasonable attempt to answer that criticism, I then said OK, let us us pretend he was a normal citizen; someone you could trust around children, and talk about what happened from that point of view. Now you accuse me of "talking in hypotheticals".

Make up your mind. And I supposed to be discussing this real incident or something else?

@CJ Morgan: Of course people should be able to take pictures with appropriate permission.

There we have a basic disagreement between us. If you have by your own choosing your yourself in a public place, then as far as I am concerned you have given permission to everybody to look at you, to record what you are doing, and to report on it. There is no need to ask.

It is a case of taking responsibility for your choices and actions. So if you personally have a problem with someone looking at, or taking a picture of your naked kiddies on the beach, then for pete's sake put some clothes on them! It is not a big ask.

I realise this isn't what the law says now. In this case the law is an ass. This sort of thinking is responsible for parents fighting over whether one parent can take a movie of their kids on the sporting field because another is worried the camera might catch a glimpse of their toddler taking a piss on the side line. This is insane.

rstuart:"This is insane"

In a nutshell. But let's face it, the society we have alllowed to be created around us over the last few decades is a pretty insane sort of a construction. Personal responsibility has been largely discarded as a driver of official policies in favour of a melange of victim-driven excuses for greater state regulation of everyday lives.

Morgan's reaction is a classic example of the old argument I mentioned earlier: "I reckon I could get turned on by such a photo, so you can't take it".

It's classic wowserism with a rather nasty streak of thought police thrown in. You're just fine as long as you do exactly what you're told, which, of course suits those who prefer not to think too much. After all, if it was OK then it wouldn't have been banned...

rstuart: << I realise this isn't what the law says now. In this case the law is an ass. >>

I think we'll have to agree to disagree - I think that the law worked very well in the case of the Southbank paedophile. Should the law and the community have to have waited until he raped yet another child, or should the precursor behaviour have been investigated? Personally, I'm happy that a predator like him can be apprehended under current laws. If he'd had a reasonable excuse for covertly taking pictures of naked little kids he wouldn't have been charged with indecent dealing. As it stands, his clearly unacceptable behaviour led to his arrest, conviction and reimprisonment - which I think is a good result.

Perhaps you and Antiseptic could start a campaign to have the law changed with respect to child pornography and indecent dealing offences. Of course, you'd have to identify yourselves and wear the public opprobrium that such a campaign would attract. Somehow I think that it's not going to happen.

CJMorgan:"you'd have to identify yourselves and wear the public opprobrium"

As I said, classic wowserism with a nasty streak of thought police and a touch of the jackboot for good measure.

@CJ Morgan: Of course, you'd have to identify yourselves and wear the public opprobrium that such a campaign would attract. Somehow I think that it's not going to happen.

Like you CJ, my nick is based on my real name. The only difference is I don't include the middle initial. Unlike you, I feely name my profession, and I name the city I live in (Brisbane).

If you think I would shy away from something like this, you are mistaken.

@CJ Morgan: Should the law and the community have to have waited until he raped yet another child, or should the precursor behaviour have been investigated?

Nope. The law in this case should have done exactly what it did do. The man is a convicted child rapist. So the law insisted he place space between himself and potential future victims. He didn't; he is back in jail - justice served. There is no need for a ban on taking pictures in public places to facilitate this.

It looks to me like yourself and others would like societies to protect you from your (entirely justifiable) phobias by placing a ban on anything that might remind you of them. You do this without any thought of what the consequences might be. So you happily rage on when a lobby group manages to get a few stories lopped off a high rise because paedophiles might peer down from the upper floors on the school ground below. You seem oblivious to fact the lobby group is a fruit of the very tree you so vigorously nourish here. It is eminently reasonable to get rid of all high rises around schools if you consider what might be running through the minds of the perverts in the upper floors a genuine concern that society should try to address.

I don't. I absolutely draw the line at making particular thoughts illegal - even thoughts that might be generated by looking at pictures. And for that, I make no apology.

rstuart - I'm glad you have the courage of your convictions. I'll watch your campaign with interest. However, you'll need to be a little less obtuse when you go public.

<< The law in this case should have done exactly what it did do. The man is a convicted child rapist. So the law insisted he place space between himself and potential future victims. He didn't; he is back in jail - justice served. There is no need for a ban on taking pictures in public places to facilitate this. >>

There isn't a ban on taking pictures in public places and nobody's proposing one. However, there is a law against indecently dealing with children under 12, and covertly taking pictures of naked children for sexual gratification is regarded by the law as a form of indecent dealing.

The pervert in question only came to attention because he was doing just that, and his conviction and custodial sentence for that charge were additional to his parole violations. If he hadn't been noticed taking pictures of naked kids it's unlikely his parole violations would have come to light.

You have every right to advocate for the rights of consumers and producers of child pornography, but if you're going to go public I suggest you sharpen your arguments.

Antiseptic - it's hardly wowserism to object to child pornography. I have no problems with the legality and availability of any pornography that only involves consenting adults, nor with artistic images of nude children. My objection is to the sexual exploitation of children.

I'm quite confident that most people in our society agree. You are quite free to campaign for child pornography to be legalised, but surely you aren't stupid enough to think that you wouldn't be reviled by most people if you do. I note that you don't display the same courage of your convictions as rstuart does.

Here's a test for you: go down to your local pub and announce that you think that people should be allowed to take pictures of naked children so they can get their rocks off.

@CJ Morgan: covertly taking pictures of naked children for sexual gratification is regarded by the law as a form of indecent dealing.

Is it? You might like to quote the statute that says it is because right now I think you are pulling that out of your bum.

You can read what makes taking pictures illegal in laymans terms here:

http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.php

In the actual Queensland statute here (it isn't big):

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s227a.html

In either case, I can see no reference to taking a photo being illegal because of how the contents might make you think or feel, even if that thought is sexual. In fact it isn't based on the feelings of person being photographed, or of the person taking the photograph. It is based on the privacy expectations of a "reasonable adult", obscenity, property and other laws unrelated to this discussion. These laws apply to you in exactly the same way they apply to paedophiles, even though the paedophile might be able to get off on a fairly innocuous child photograph. Thus a paedophile can take the same pictures of children you can, and get off on them later with impunity.

That is a pretty unpleasant thought. But most people realise it is better than the alternative - punishing thought crimes. You can only punish concrete actions. So you can't be put in jail for thinking you might kill someone, even if you bought the knife and wrote out a long plan on how you intended to go about it, and that was discovered. Equally, we can't punish someone for getting off on a picture of a child or taking a picture for that purpose. There has to be something else wrong with the picture, or the situation.

This idea of "you can't go to jail for just thinking something" is a pretty simple principle, really. It doesn't matter if it is really, really obvious you are thinking it, and it is really, really gross. We don't do it; the reason is obvious; and I am surprised anybody claiming to be a reasonable person would endorse it.

CJMorgan:"go down to your local pub and announce that you think that people should be allowed to take pictures of naked children so they can get their rocks off."

Why on earth would I do that? You're the poor chap who thinks that because he finds pictures of naked children titillating then no pictures of naked children should exist anywhere, even though most of the rest of society doesn't share his affliction. Give it up, little fella, most of us don't find naked children remotely exciting.

As rstuart has argued very convincingly and as you continue to exemplify, allowing the worst of human behaviour to determine the ways in which the rest of us may behave is nothing more than totalitarianism.

rstuart: << right now I think you are pulling that out of your bum. >>

Did you miss the bit in the report to which I linked about the paedophile being convicted of indecent dealing of a child under 12? The "indecent dealing" in this case is the covert photography of the little girl for the purposes of sexual gratification. He didn't do anything else to her.

You're so desperate to defend the indefensible that you're starting to appear thick, which isn't like you.

On the other hand,

Antiseptic: << Why on earth would I do that? >>

I thought you wanted to join rstuart's campaign to legalise child pornography.

<< You're the poor chap who thinks that because he finds pictures of naked children titillating then no pictures of naked children should exist anywhere >>

No need to tell porkies. I explicitly stated that I don't think that artistic images of naked children are necessarily pornographic. I'm talking about images where children are sexually exploited, as you well know.

CJ
Valiant efforts but you are flogging a dead horse.

Some quite startling views and misrepresentations. Such as the use of the high rise building scenario reveals a scraping of the bottom of the barrell to find the most ridiculous example of paranoia to use as the benchmark means you have already lost your case.

CJMorgan:"No need to tell porkies"
"I thought you wanted to join rstuart's campaign to legalise child pornography."

Quite right little fella fella, there's no need for me to tell lies, you've got that market cornered.

[Deleted for abuse]

rstuart, your mistake was in trying to engage with Morgan as a thinking adult with considered views. His entire outpur here has gone to show that he prefers not to think, but to have his opinions delivered to him pre-packaged in an easily regurgitated form - no further processing required.

Pelican, what do you find difficult to understand in rstuart's proposition? Is it the concept that some people might get off on seeing pictures of naked children but most don't? Is it the concept that normal people should not be judged by the standards applicable to abnormal ones? Is it the proposition that state regulation applicable to all should not be based on the most extreme examples of behaviour?

Or is it simply a knee-jerk response to the word "paedophile" - no further thought required, as in the Morgan Model?

It constantly amazes me that so many are so willing to get into a moral panic over so few.

@CJ Morgan: Did you miss the bit in the report to which I linked about the paedophile being convicted of indecent dealing of a child under 12?

You keep pounding this one drum. He pleaded guilty, which means whether broke any laws wasn't decided by a court. It seems likely he did break his restrictive supervision order in multiple ways, including by taking of those photos, so the Judge had no problem locking him up.

As for the photos, sadly CJ I fear you are right - it may well be the case that a picture of a naked child considered child porn. Or it might be a naked child on a beach is considered to have more privacy rights than a clothed one. If that is the case, most of us parents are probably paedophiles in the eyes of the law. (Recall the statute I linked to above equates pictures and observing, so you are not even allow to look at a naked child if this is so.) But if pictures of naked children aren't child porn and a guilty plea wasn't entered, then those charges would have been dismissed.

If you think otherwise, do what I did and link to the statute he broke. Otherwise, please give it up. You are flogging a dead horse.

@pelican: the use of the high rise building scenario reveals a scraping of the bottom of the barrel

Here are a few more scrapings for you:
- Several people convicted of looking at cartoons.
- A sunshine coast man prosecuted for posting a video of a man playing with his son.
- A Sydney man prosecuted for taking pictures of fully clothed kids in a public pool.

Like the high rise building scenario, these incidents devastated the lives of real people, good, hard working mums, dads and grandparents. You may think it is perfectly harmless punish people for thinking the wrong thing, but there is inevitable collateral damage. You are happy enough to take ownership of the laws. Well, be responsible enough to take responsibility for the damage they cause as well.

rstuart and anti
I understand your premise as borne out by anti's statement:

"Is it the concept that normal people should not be judged by the standards applicable to abnormal ones? Is it the proposition that state regulation applicable to all should not be based on the most extreme examples of behaviour?"

But the point is you can use all sorts of extreme examples of paranoia about child safety of which make up 0.01% of actual court decisions and court cases. The high rise one being of course one of the most stupid. It is easier to deal with the stupid ones but a lot harder to deal with the actual cases of abuse.

Allowing a man access to his child when there have been claims of abuse, the child did not want to return and he had been found downloading child porn. That is what this article is about.

Arguing that viewing child porn is perfectly acceptable as long as the person does not commit a physical act against a child belies the fact that child porn means that a child has already been abused just so those perverts can get their jollies.

That is why viewing without actually doing is illegal in this case.

'Arguing that viewing child porn is perfectly acceptable as long as the person does not commit a physical act against a child belies the fact that child porn means that a child has already been abused just so those perverts can get their jollies.'

Depends on your definition of porn pelican. CJ thinks any picture taken with a zoom lens of a naked child in a public place is child porn. Personally I disagree. If some nutter (Or Anne Geddes) wants to take pics of my kids getting changed at the beach (discretely), I see no victim. He can do whatever he likes with those pictures.

If I minded, I would cover my child with a towel to prevent this public display of nudity.

@pelican: Allowing a man access to his child when there have been claims of abuse, the child did not want to return and he had been found downloading child porn. That is what this article is about.

No. But I agree with everything you say, bar the final sentence. The article is an argument about whether the kids should be allowed access to their biological father, and you conveniently left half of that argument out.

Firstly, we don't know how strong the correlation between collecting child porn and child abuse is. It might be weak, or sporadic. Secondly, people in the family court lie, in fact they tell outrageous lies. Thirdly, children in these cases are manipulated by their parents, and in fact they often seem to be used as pawns by parents in their fight.

If those against points are true then ensuring the kids have access to the biological father would right thing to do. I have no idea what is true, and it looks to like like the Judge didn't either. If that is the case the final orders given by the Judge look entirely appropriate to me.

That, pelican is the full argument, not just the side you happen to agree with.

@pelican: Arguing that viewing child porn is perfectly acceptable as long as the person does not commit a physical act against a child belies the fact that child porn means that a child has already been abused just so those perverts can get their jollies.

It may seem "obvious" to you kids are abused primarily to make pictures of it. Unlike you I don't pretend to understand the minds of these people, so I look elsewhere. The statistics say there is, if anything, a negative correlation between the number of pictures floating around and abused kids. I have never seen any expert say the kids were abused primarily to make pictures. Never.

So, you assertion looks unlike unproven whimsy to me. Unlike you, I think prosecuting people on what is literally an unproven whim isn't upholding Justice. It is a perversion of Justice.

rstuart

I would like to listen to your unpopular views with an open mind, but Im finding it really hard to see how an increased availability of child-porn could possibly reduce the amount of child sexual abuse. What is the psychology behind this assertion? What is the mechanism that might make this claim plausible?

@benk: What is the psychology behind this assertion? What is the mechanism that might make this claim plausible?

Let me put what I am about to say into perspective. I don't consider it much better than a wild arsed guess. Like you and I the psychologists see the stats (example: http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1999-pornography-rape-sex-crimes-japan.html ). It looks to me like that have plucked some explanation out of the air which sounds very reasonable but has little empirical justification. Well, nothing beyond it fitting the stats.

First a statement of the problem: there is no doubt people who consume huge amounts of porn commit more sex crimes, but it appears sex crimes drop with the increasing availability of porn. It is a conundrum. To explain it, the psychologists say an underlying character flaw drives both things.

So rather than saying the mere sight of porn causes people to do what is depicted, the character flaw is what drives paedophiles, rapists, serial murders and so on. The porn has little effect on those without the flaw. One way to satisfy an unshakable urge is to do the deed, but as we all know porn can also satisfy an innate drive. So kiddie porn can partially satisfy a paedophile's urges.

This gives our deviant a choice. He can get his highs from doing the deed, but if he does that often enough we will find him and throw away the keys. Or he can make do with porn. It is not as good as the real thing, but maybe it beats spending your life in jail. It also appears some deviants are disgusted by the harm caused by their urges and look for a way to escape them. The guy in CJ's newspaper article is an example of this - he has pleaded for chemical castration repeatedly.

Prior to the internet, I imagine getting hold of kiddie porn was well neigh impossible, so that second option wasn't available. But with the increasing availability of porn it becomes an easier and easier option to take, and the deviants are making a rational decision to do so.

benk,

Since you seem trying to put some rational thought into this, I'll explain another part of the puzzle. It is easiest to do this by contrasting child porn with snuff films. Initially there doesn't seem to be much difference between the two. They are both abhorrent. Surely if support you ban one you would support banning both.

But I don't. I can't see any reason not to ban snuff films. The critical difference is it fairly to figure out if someone has been killed. Since there can't be much argument about that, there can't be much argument about what is and isn't a snuff film.

That isn't the case for child porn. Obviously at one end of the scale there is no debate. It is not hard to imagine a scene we would all agree on banning, just as we can with snuff films. I have no doubt when pelican (who I happen to think is a fairly reasonable person) says all child porn should be banned it is scenes like this she is thinking about.

But the other end is mushy. Everyone knows where the line should be drawn, but it is in a different place each time. Thus you get some twit it should be drawn on high rise buildings adjacent to schools, another who thinks Bill Henson photographs are child abuse, laws that say Simpsons cartoons are child porn, and mandatory internet filters to get rid of it all. Pelican wants to disown this, but human nature being what it is this insanity can't be separated from the law because unlike snuff films, the line is mushy.

So some innocent people are getting their lives wrecked because we have criminalised possession of child porn. But to some extent this is true for most laws. We always take some pain to get the gain. So what is different this time? Well - I can't see the gain. Common sense says kids should be safer if we reduce child porn, and I am sure this is what pelican relies on. But the stats say pelican is wrong.

rstuart - once again we'll have to agree to disagree, I think. I'm quite comfortable with the way that laws pertaining to child pornography stand, but I acknowledge that you have the right to campaign for its legalisation.

I agree with some of your points - e.g. I wouldn't classify the Simpsons cartoons as child pornography, since no actual child was involved in their production. However, in all your rationalisations about child pornography you don't seem to take into account the children who are abused in its production.

Anyway, with the recent injection of Antiseptic and his toady into the discussion, I think that the civility we've been able to maintain is unlikely to be maintained, so I'll leave you to it.

As I said, I'll watch your campaign with interest.

'think that the civility we've been able to maintain is unlikely to be maintained,'

That civility was maintained by Fractelle's post being deleted and Fractelle being suspended. Ah there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Too funny.

We have CJ leaving because he's scared of myself and antiseptic and we have pynchme leaving because she hasn't got the support of Fractelle. BTW the biggest laugh all year was that last pynchme post. Oh actually second biggest, the biggest was the supposedly saintly Fractelle being suspended.

Just what is it that I said that scared you so CJ? I posted nothing abusive, all I did was clarify to pelican the definition of child porn that was in question. ie naked children in public.

[Deleted for abuse]

[Deleted for abuse]

rstuart: The basis of your current argument linked http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1999-pornography-rape-sex-crimes-japan.html is that where pornography increases, sexual crimes go down.

There are a few points to consider:

1. You've argued that the occurrence of sexual crimes can't be 'proven' to be caused by pornography (which I didn't argue - but never mind for now).

If there is no proven link between pornography and sex crimes being committed, then there can be no proven link between the proposed reduction of sex crimes and pornography. That is, the association, whatever the nature, cannot only be held to exist in one direction.

It's somewhat like me arguing that eating jelly beans cause weight gain; and you arguing that's nothing more than an hypothesis and a correlation - then arguing that in any case, eating jelly beans causes weight reduction.

Your cited Sex therapist Petr Weiss has put forward his opinion but I didn't see any evidence for it.

2. It hasn't been shown whether there is a reduction in sex crimes, a change in the definition of sex crime; the reporting rate or capture and conviction rates.

It can be argued that where there is a tolerance of pornography, there is also a greater indifference to sexual abuse - therefore fewer crimes investigated, reported, or gaining convictions.

The proportion of people claiming to have been sexually abused as children remains fairly constant across several countries - currently being about 1 in 4 or 5 female children and approx 1 in 6 (though rising) male children - that is, 2 in 10 children or 20 percent of the population under age of consent.

3. I too disagree with most cartoons being considered pornography though there are definitely some that are sources of pain for many people (Penthouse for example - the Chester the Molester series which were drawn by a fellow who was later convicted of child sexual abuse).
It might be argued that cartoons reflect attitudes that already exist and I believe that's part of the reason that people dismiss them as just a bit of fun.

cont/d:

cont/d:

They aren't a bit of fun to anyone familiar with the experience or after effects of sexual abuse.

Here's a good discussion of declining rates of sexual abuse and ways in which some of that change may be artefactual:

http://www.uq.edu.au/qadrec/Documents/Najman03Is-child-sexual-abuse-declining.pdf

One of the reasons that Simpson cartoons, Manga and the like shouldn't be lumped in with pornography involving actual people is that it tends to trivialize the impact of real pornography.

http://manufacturedcontempt.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/larry-flynt-and-hustler-magazine/

The other point is the normalization of abuse. Research shows that one of the few effective tools against recidivism is social disapproval. Some perpetrator group programs have had to be restructured and many abandoned because perpetrators grouped together became further desensitized to the impact of the abuse on their victims, exchanging 'tips' on how to procure victims etc.

Therefore it's important for even ineffectual opposition and disapproval of sexual abuse to exist. If nothing else it validates the victims' experience and acts to let child abusers know that social approval is not absolute.

It's worth considering some points made years ago by Andrea Dworkin.

One is that many men cannot grasp what it's like for most of one half of the population and basically all of a population under a certain age, to be despised by those who are purport to love and protect them. Pornography is one way in which such attitudes are transmitted.

Scenario: Some women somewhere start a site where they create images of men being beaten and raped (like the Abu Ghraib prison pics); or with a jack hammer being forced into an orifice; of men hung painfully on meat hooks, or bound, gagged and frightened; of boys having to kneel to be spat on or otherwise degraded with bodily fluids and excrement, by a bunch of women. Women encourage each other to masturbate to those images and many/most women find pictures of men and boys in pain and degraded as sexually exciting.

It would be fair enough I think for at least some boys and men to suspect that women really loathed them and cause enough to fight against it.

http://www.harpyness.com/2009/04/08/feminist-food-for-thought-andrea-dworkin/

http://www.safefamilies.org/sfStats.php

@Houellebecq: That civility was maintained by Fractelle's post being deleted

I am curious. What are you talking about? She hasn't posted since 2009.

@CJ Morgan: Anyway, with the recent injection of Antiseptic and his toady into the discussion

Gezz. If that wasn't for abuse, I wonder what the others said that got deleted. I keep missing the fun.

@CJ Morgan: As I said, I'll watch your campaign with interest.

You have been following it for about as far as it will go, unless some new avenue shows itself.

But is it not as radical as it seems. You get all het up about this because its kids. But the difference between kids and say a movie of a woman being violently raped, or a man being bashed is beyond me. All, I am saying is they should be treated equally. No special laws against kidde porn. Treat it exactly the same as the rest, under the existing obscenity laws that apply and I'd be happy.

It is not the radical proposal you suggest it is. It is just a request not to think of the children, to just treat the children like everyone else. And by doing so end this insanity about cartoons, high rise buildings, photographing children in public places and all the other nonsense it seems to engender.

I am now wondering if someone will come along and say "but ... you are a free speech nut, you are against all obscenity laws". That is wrong, but it seems so far from the topic at hand I'll leave it for now.

pynchme:"many men cannot grasp what it's like for most of one half of the population and basically all of a population under a certain age, to be despised by those who are purport to love and protect them."

Oh dear, you really are feeling down, aren't you hon. If it makes you feel better, I don't despise you, I just don't think you make much sense.

Rstuart:"treat the children like everyone else."

You obviously despise women and children, just like all men do, at least according to pynchme. Don't you realise you're attacking the heart of female power in this country?

I agree with you, on the other hand. There is a real dichotomy being established, in which someone below a certain age is deemed worthy of the most stringent and draconian interventions by society and damn the torpedoes or the feelings or the rights of anyboy else, while the next day, after an arbitrary line has been crossed, they're on their own under the sketchy protection of the thin blue line and their own wits, just like all the other adults (the men, anyway, some women seem to be eternally children with their mouths agape for whatever the Mother state regurgitates into them). What changed on that day?

I'd like pynchme or one of the other victim-makers to explain how they reconcile that.

rstuart, Fractelle is now severin, having left the site after a dummy spit over not getting her own way and then returning. There was apparently some password problem or something that resulted in her name change.

@Pynchme: If there is no proven link between pornography and sex crimes being committed

I didn't say there wasn't a link. In fact I explicitly said there is one! Cf: @rstuart: here is no doubt people who consume huge amounts of porn commit more sex crimes.

What I tried to explain is "correlation doesn't imply causation". Assuming it does is an error so common there is an Wikipedia article devoted to the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

If you don't understand this, given your current vocation I'd strongly suggest you read up on it and attempt to get a firm grasp on the concept.

@Pynchme: It can be argued that where there is a tolerance of pornography, there is also a greater indifference to sexual abuse - therefore fewer crimes investigated, reported, or gaining convictions.

People can and do argue passionately for all sort of things, including the earth is flat and a dark strip in the Milky was the result of a Rainbow Serpent descending from there to live in our water ways. Human nature being way it is, the mere fact that someone argues something doesn't mean it has any basis in reality. Got any evidence to support this claim?

@Pynchme: Here's a good discussion of declining rates of sexual abuse and ways in which some of that change may be artefactual

Eh? I skimmed that paper, and I saw no claim the change may be an artefact of changing attitudes or reporting. Here is its conclusion:

"These population-based findings provide evidence of a decline in the underlying rate of CSA in Australia. Although every measure of CSA inevitably is flawed to some extent, these trends in self-report complement official statistics that show substantial decline in recent years."

The interesting thing for me is the paper says that prior to 2000 (ie prior to widespread internet usage) rates appeared to be stable or increasing. Now, after widespread internet adoption they are dropping.

@Pynchme: It's worth considering some points made years ago by Andrea Dworkin.

Only if you are considering discussing the opinions of a complete twat, someone who attempted smuggler to herion and failed, and blamed that attempt on the man in her failed relationship of a year ago. That woman and her accomplice Catharine Mackinnon managed to inflict more harms on our society than most paedophiles. Reading the works of the likes Betty Friedan gave me a healthy respect feminism, but you girls letting your movement be hijacked and twisted into some perverted misandristic mantra by Dworkin and her ilk had severely eroded most males sympathies for it.

@Pynchme: It would be fair enough I think for at least some boys and men to suspect that women really loathed them and cause enough to fight against it.

You don't get it do you? I am not interested in discussing your theories of how the human mind might work. I frankly don't think you have a clue on the subject. Don't read that too harshly, as I don't think anyone knows how the human mind works - at least not to the extent you are implying in that little piece of deduction. Give me stats that suggest what you are saying is in fact the case and I might give it some credence. In other words, until you can back them up with some supporting figures I place about as much weight on your feminist theories as I do on a 3 year olds rationalisation of why they took the lolly.

@Antiseptic: rstuart, Fractelle is now severin,

Thanks. That is depressing. My ability to divine the personality behind the personality behind the post is apparently at the level of a gnat.

Pynchme, I've been reading those links you provided. The first one says:"These population-based findings provide evidence of a decline in the underlying rate of CSA in Australia. Although every measure of CSA inevitably is flawed to some extent, these trends in self-report complement official statistics that show substantial decline in recent years."

Given that this report was compiled in 2002 from data collected , why do you think there is still a strong focus on CSA (principally committed by males) when at the same time, the rate of child physical abuse and neglect, primarily within single-mother homes, has soared?

You say:"Research shows that one of the few effective tools against recidivism is social disapproval", so why is there so little disapproval of neglectful and abusive single-mothers, including from you? Why do people like you try to minimise the seriousness of such abuse, while playing up the seriousness of other, less common forms of abuse?

You say:"If nothing else it validates the victims' experience and acts to let child abusers know that social approval is not absolute."

So is it your view that victims of neglect need no such "validation" and the perpetrators need not know that they are nor socially approved? Certainly that would be a reasonable interpretation of your output to date.

As it happens, I don't think that's the case at all, merely that you're not very well equipped to think critically or to analyse what you read. It's a shame.

Here's a tip, BTW, when thinking up your bext "men being humiliated" fantasy: most men don't like their women to be in pain or humiliated, we enjoy our women enjoying themselves. You seem to have a very deviant view.

RStuart

I admire your desire to think for yourself, but as CJ mentioned, you will need to sharpen your arguments to win this debate. Protecting kids is a very emotive topic. The research that you have cited has failed to prove that viewing porn leads to sexual assault of adults. You will probably need to provide evidence that viewing child porn prevents some people from abusing kids to win this debate. The issue of the Simpson's cartoon is different.

Pynchme

I'll do you a deal. I won't generalise about feminists by using Andrea Dworkin as an example if you don't generalise about men using consumers of that particular type of porn as an example. Dworkin is quoted mainly by people trying to discredit feminism. I don't believe that I know anyone who would enjoy watching a woman being bashed.

@benk: The research that you have cited has failed to prove that viewing porn leads to sexual assault of adults.

You've lost me. Do those words reflect what you were actually thinking?

@benk: The issue of the Simpson's cartoon is different.

I presume the ACMA declaring pictures of women with small boobs because men get off on it as child porn is also "different"? Because as I said, the Simpson's cartoons is the start of a slipper slope, and the bottom of that slope is getting pretty close to where I think we should be.

Which brings us to I might hope might be achieved by this discussion. It wasn't the dropping our currently special treatment of child porn over and above the provisions in our current obscenity laws.

It was nudging people towards the realisation that this current moral panic over "think of the children" and this hysteria over anything that looks remotely like child porn is is actually doing more harm to kids than good. Locking up dads and granddads who have never hurt a kid and never will, simply because they have looked at an inappropriate picture does not help kids, families or anyone else.

So did that happen? Do you think it is possible this current hysteria over paedophilia has become so extreme it is actually harming the very people its supporters claim they are trying to protect?

RStuart

"You've lost me. Do those words reflect what you were actually thinking?"

Yep, the availability of porn increased at the same time that the incidence of sexual assault decreased. It isn't possible to conclude that one led to the other. This is basic psychology, it is hard to prove causation with a case study. I would presume that the consumption of Diet Coke also increased in the same period, but that doesn't prove that Diet Coke prevents rape either. Further to that, it is hard to generalise from what happened in Japan regarding adults to child porn and sexual abuse in Australia.

"Which brings us to I might hope might be achieved by this discussion. It wasn't the dropping our currently special treatment of child porn over and above the provisions in our current obscenity laws.
It was nudging people towards the realisation that this current moral panic over "think of the children" and this hysteria over anything that looks remotely like child porn is is actually doing more harm to kids than good."

Yes, I agree that hysteria can lead to un-necessary responses that do more harm than good. However, over the course of this debate, you have used a wide range of arguments. For example, you claimed that " kiddie porn can partially satisfy a paedophile's urges", leading to less CSA. You have a fair way to go before you will have proved that one.

Antiseptic: <"why do you think there is still a strong focus on CSA (principally committed by males) when at the same time, the rate of child physical abuse and neglect, primarily within single-mother homes, has soared?">

It hasn't soared. Notifications increased due to legislation re: mandatory reporting and the inclusion of the effects on children of domestic violence. Also, notifications received include notifications made more than once for the same child. Since mandatory reporting became a requirement, each child is likely to be the subject of multiple notifications.

Most recently, substantiations decreased. It isn't know whether that pattern will hold; too early to tell.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs1/rs1.html

Social disapproval re: recidivism was in reference to child sexual abuse/ paedophilia. Research has shown that it is the single most effective way (but even then recidivism occurs) of discouraging abusers from repeating the offence.

It is one of your more ridiculous accusations that I don't disapprove of all types of child abuse. It just so happens that the topic under discussion refers to an issue of sexual abuse, and I respond to your continued minimization and disregard of that form of abuse.

In fact the categorizing of abuse into different types is misleading; sexual abuse entails emotional abuse; beatings and neglect often co-occur with sexual and emotional abuse. A mother who neglects her child is very unlikely to notice or act on her child's experience of sexual abuse.

All that said, all types of abuse except sexual abuse are more easily detected and most often linked to socio-economic conditions (Becket, 2003) and families who experience deprivation are more likely to come under scrutiny by various workers and agencies, so all types of abuse that occur in more well to do families is harder to detect.

cont'd

Cont'd:

Rates of reporting and of substantiation of child sexual abuse is very low compared to the rate, consistent over time and in several countries, reported by adults years after the fact. That is - the rate 1 in 4 or 5 females and 1 in 4 boys (that is 20 percent of all children), gathered from surveys amongst adult populations.

Research has also shown that the personal trauma arising from CSA is a significant factor in the personal histories of up to 75% of people who experience a mental illness and/or suicide.

There is a community research study that shows that the more closely related the child sex abuser is, the less likely that the victim, family or community will report it or approve of it being reported:

http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/discussionpaper/discussion1.html

CSA is harder than other types of abuse to detect unless there is overt physical damage; harder for children to report and describe; less likely to be taken seriously; less likely to go to trial and much less likely to obtain a conviction.

Physical abuse and neglect is likely to be noticed and acted on by GPs, teachers, health workers and such - and attract various degrees of concern and caring, ie: validation. CSA is unique in this regard.

People who experience CSA are likely to carry the secret and the pain of it alone for years: feelings of love and dread of the perpetrator; family loyalty; fear of leaving siblings behind to the abuser; fear of rocking the boat and because they are often told it will be their fault if the family breaks up... etc.

CSA is the most insidious of all forms of abuse.

Just reflect on whether you would rather have someone you trust bash you or force you to give them a head job. Neither prospect is appealing I know (sorry). Both are damaging, but which would you be most likely to report; which would be most likely to leave enough evidence to gain a conviction ? What if the unity of your friendships and family depended on whether or not you kept silent.

Benk: I don't quite grasp the terms of your deal. Can you restate what you mean.

Thanks,
pynch

pynchme, yet again you spend two posts doing your best to minimise both the effects and the rates of child physical and emotional abuse and neglect, claiming that reported rates are overreports because reporting of incidents is mandatory, while trying to pretend that the massively overhyped problem of CSA is somehow "underreported", despite similar mandatory reporting requirements.

As I said, you're just not very good at either analysis or critical thinking, at least on subjects related to sex, whether CSA or between consenting adults. I suspect that you have a personal agenda based on a real and intense dislike of sex, which shows itself in your rather lurid fantasies to do with male pain and humiliation in a sexual context.

benk:"It isn't possible to conclude that one led to the other."

No, as rstuart says, correlation does not imply causation, but correlation also does not imply no causation. If one notices correlation, it is often useful to hypothesize causation and then reason and test to arrive at a strong conclusion one way ot the other. That's the way research works - it requires hypothesising and testing rather than a reliance on received wisdom based on conjecture or an appeal to popularity, such as is the case with religion and politics.

Far too much social "research" is of the form "I'd like a result like this, what do I need to do to achieve it". People like Flood and pynchme and CJMorgan then collect that self-serving dross as though it were finest research steel and try to fashion arguments from it, wondering why they keep falling apart. If there is no critical analysis of the raw data, then there can be no sensible conclusion reached, regardless of the chaib of reasoning that follows. As well, if there is no logical consistency in the reasoning, then the quality of the data is irrelevant. Unfirtunately, most of those who go into social studies seem to come from the cohort who find maths and science a bit hard, so they simply don't apply it to their work.

Pynchme

Your exact words were
"One is that many men cannot grasp what it's like for most of one half of the population and basically all of a population under a certain age, to be despised by those who are purport to love and protect them. Pornography is one way in which such attitudes are transmitted."

You then discussed an especially violent subset of all porn. I believe that most men would refuse to watch this type of porn. Therefore, consumers of this type of porn are atypical and it would be unfair to generalise about men from this example.

Similarly, Dworkin has a track record of making outlandish, tosserish statements. The claim that all sex is rape is often attributed to her, although she denies saying this. She is regularly quoted by people seeking to discredit feminism. I believe that her views are extreme and therefore, using her views to generalise about other feminists is unfair.

Anti

The Japanese research did provide some evidence that porn does-not lead to more sexual assault and suggested, but did-not prove that it might actually lead to less sexual assault. I thought RStuart was trying to argue that child porn might meet a need in paedophiles, meaning that they don't need to abuse real children. This is possible, but this study does little to prove (or disprove) this assertion.

In any case, most porn shows consentual sex and not rape. Therefore, anyone copying what they saw in the porn would be having consentual sex and not raping women. So rates of rape would be irrelevant. It makes sense that some people who see child porn would copy what they saw, so anyone wanting a dramatic liberalisation of laws will need strong evidence proving otherwise.

Nothing has changed, Rstuart and Antiseptic continue to argue the following:

1. Their 'right' to view any type of pornography.

2. Sidetracking the topic from one where a father who was charged with viewing child pornography to yet again blaming single mothers, in complete oblivion to the fact this same was father was accused by his own children of inappropriate behaviour.

All the while avoiding the fact that to be able to watch child pornography such films have to be made. This requires the exploitation and coercion of children.

From UNICEF: http://www.unicef.org/media/media_46524.html

“Sexual exploitation leaves children with psychological and at times physical scars, and diminishes their hopes of leading a life of dignity,” said UNICEF Executive Director Ann M. Veneman. “No country or region is immune, and there are no innocent bystanders.”

Sexual exploitation is a violation of a child’s right to care and protection. The Congress will look at various types of sexual exploitation of children, including sexual exploitation in the family, child marriage, sexual exploitation of child domestic laborers, the commercial sex industry, as well as child pornography and sexual exploitation of children in cyber space.

Predators continue to use new tools to target children, including cyber space and new generation mobile phone technologies, and adults can prey on children in chat rooms and use the internet to post or download pornography."

Cont'd

Cont'd

http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id=2709

"Commercial sexual exploitation refers to the sexual abuse of children in exchange for a payment of some kind. This can be money, but can also be for favours or other benefits such as food, protection or shelter. There are three primary and interrelated forms of commercial sexual exploitation of children: prostitution, pornography, and trafficking for sexual purposes. .....

....Child pornography refers to any representation, by whatever means, of a child engaged in real or simulated sexual activities or the representation of the sexual parts of a child. The main characteristic of child pornography is that it is produced for sexual gratification. Child pornography includes photographs, negatives, slides, magazines, books, drawings, recordings, movies, videotapes,
computer disks or files and images stored on mobile phones. .....

.....There are considerable difficulties in disentangling the different forms of sexual violence and abuse, principally because typically they do not occur in isolation, and there are many links between them. Not all children who are trafficked are sexually exploited (though it is a common feature) and similarly not all children who experience sexual violence (such as rape) are commercially sexually exploited. However, any child who has experienced any form of abuse is more vulnerable to subsequent abuse of both the same and different natures."

There is no excuse for the production of child porn. Viewing such exploitative media is not an innocent past-time, such behaviour supports an industry that preys on children.

Along with CJ Morgan I have argued for the freedom for artists like Bill Henson also I do not see cartoons like the Simpsons as pornography. Yes there are those who do wax hysterical over anything.

However, consider the technology we now have to create virtual scenarios where it is not necessary to use children, is the production of virtual child porn acceptable? No children are harmed in its production. Whether this would mean an adult viewing such media is less likely to enact these 'fantasies' is open to debate.

And finally, would anyone want their children viewing of any type: real or virtual? No matter what protections we as parents take, we cannot monitor our children's lives 24/7, for example whose homes they visit.

_____________________________________________
PS
Pynchme and CJ Morgan thank you for your kind words - very much appreciated.

Severin, speaking for myself, I have no desire to watch child pornography and have said so on several occasions. I find your comment both insulting personally and unrepresentative of my views. Please amend it.

Severin:"to be able to watch child pornography such films have to be made. This requires the exploitation and coercion of children."

So you believe that all photography of children involves "exploitation and coercion" of those children? You may be right - my Nanna was very insistent that I should be properly scrubbed and smile "happily" for the camera during those interminable photography sessions that afflicted every event, regardless of my own preference to be off doing stuff that made ME happy. The photos were apparently for her own gratification and to be shared with other similarly child-obsessed women. Funnily, I never thought of Nanna as a pornographer, but now that you've pointed it out, it's obvious...

Severin:"the fact this same was father was accused by his own children of inappropriate behaviour."

Which was only "inapproriate" because he had a conviction for having possessed waht was deemed to be child pornography, including pictures of young girls both dressed and undressed and which the Judge described as at "the lower end" of the CP scale. On the evidence available he didn't have any pictures meeting the definition of CP you provide.

Both of my children have routinely slept in my bed all their lives. As a wilfully childless person, I'm not surprised you fail to understand the innocence and trust implicit in such a course of action. There is nothing "inapproriate" about it except in the dirty minds of wowsers like you and your recently bereft hangers-on.

I'd go further and suggest that most normal parents allow their children to sleep with them, which makes such behaviour not merely "appropriate", but reasonable.

I note that you too, are keen to minimise the real and serious problem of child physical and emotional abuse and neglect, which is overwhelmingly a problem within single mother households, in favour of hysterical beating-up of the much smaller problem of CSA.

Why is that? Don't you think negelected and abused kids deserve our help?

Antiseptic: << Far too much social "research" is of the form "I'd like a result like this, what do I need to do to achieve it". People like Flood and pynchme and CJMorgan then collect that self-serving dross as though it were finest research steel and try to fashion arguments from it, wondering why they keep falling apart. >>

I find your comment both insulting personally and unrepresentative of my views. Please amend it.

P.S. Welcome back Severin :) I've decided to give no more oxygen to rstuart's campaign to legalise child porn - see you on another thread.

CJ Morgan

Agreed. I haven't bothered to read Anti's latest excuses and insults.

I'm back - people's antipathy and biases will not deter me from presenting my honest opinions.

Cheers m'dear.

@benk: The research that you have cited has failed to prove that viewing porn leads to sexual assault of adults.

@benk: Yep, the availability of porn increased at the same time that the incidence of sexual assault decreased.

Your first statement was a odd way of putting it. Neither the research quoted nor I were attempting to prove viewing porn leads to sexual assaults, so we could hardly be said to have failed to do it.

@benk: you claimed that " kiddie porn can partially satisfy a paedophile's urges", leading to less CSA.

I put things as clearly as I can, and it still gets twisted. You asked: "@benk: What is the psychology behind this assertion? What is the mechanism that might make this claim plausible?" So in good faith I attempt to answer your question, but prefix the answer with "Let me put what I am about to say into perspective. I don't consider it much better than a wild arsed guess." And now you claim I was trying to prove it was true!

@benk: You have a fair way to go before you will have proved that one.

Claming I proposed an absolute proof is doubly annoying in this case because it implies I have some fundamental misunderstanding in how science works. There can be no absolute proof.

What I have said over and over again, is the statistics show when the availability of porn rises sex crimes don't. I have provided several examples of where sex crimes dropped while the availability of porn was increasing. You say the Japanese example may not apply to Australia. I doubt this but even if it is true the near static level of sex crimes in Australia during the rise and rise of the availability of porn via internet makes it clear it does apply here.

If you think I haven't made my case it would be helpful if provided counter examples, ie where the increasing availability of porn was matched by increasing sex crimes. No one to date has done that.

@Severin: Nothing has changed, Rstuart and Antiseptic continue to argue the following: Their 'right' to view any type of pornography.

An odd claim, since I personally specifically avoid making claims about absolute rights. I don't believe they exist. The only thing that gives us "rights" is the law, which is a man made construct. I haven't see Anti make any claims about rights either.

What I have said is that:

1. There is no evidence the increasing availability of child porn causes more harms to kids, and

2. Prosecuting fathers and others on the basis of possesing child porn harms kids.

3. Kids aside, perusing child porn with the righteous zeal you show here does cause a lot of unnecessary harm to people and families in our society.

Nowhere is there an argument about "rights" of any sort. You invented that.

@Severin: All the while avoiding the fact that to be able to watch child pornography such films have to be made. This requires the exploitation and coercion of children.

You turn me into a bloody record, answering this same nonsense over and over again. Obviously reality television features people committing crimes of all sort. Obviously they make money out of this, and so obviously this means the TV is exploiting the pain of victims to make money. Lets an it all!

CJMorgan:"I find your comment both insulting personally and unrepresentative of my views. Please amend it."

Still looking for others to tell you what to say, I see. At least you chose a reputable source on this occasion, I suppose. We might call that progress...

Me yesterday:"On the evidence available he didn't have any pictures meeting the definition of CP you provide."
Severin yesterday:"I haven't bothered to read Anti's latest excuses and insults. "

Me yesterday:"most normal parents allow their children to sleep with them, which makes such behaviour not merely "appropriate", but reasonable."
Severin yesterday:"I haven't bothered to read Anti's latest excuses and insults."

Me yesterday:"Why is that? Don't you think negelected and abused kids deserve our help?"
Severin yesterday:"I haven't bothered to read Anti's latest excuses and insults."

Of course you haven't dear, Antiseptic actually makes sense, as does rstuart, so you're completely out of your depth.

Still, at least you and CJ have each other. You can tell him what to "think" and he can tell you what you told him. Sounds perfect for both of you.

43 pages in which Anti and Rstuart have attempted to justify the possession and viewing of child pornography - they claim they don't view personally, but apparently are fighting for the rights of others to child porn.

Not once, have they expressed the slightest concern for the children used, abused, coerced or exploited in the production of child pornography - I have read their posts sufficiently to know this. Not a single expression of compassion for children in general or the children of the father whose behaviour began this lengthy debate.

Not a shred of empathy.

I have done everything I can, including suspension, in order to achieve some acknowledgement that to create child porn one requires CHILDREN - there is nothing that either Anti or Rstuart can say that justifies their opinion on this topic. Few things are so clear or black and white in our society as the evil of exploiting children.

Severin:"Few things are so clear or black and white in our society as the evil of exploiting children."

The sun is in the sky, it must be daytime. Cheese binds you up, prunes make you poo.

And endlessly repeated obviosities of all sorts, none of which have anything to do with what rstuart or I have said in this thread.

It's also clear you have no empathy for the poor kids going to bed hungry tonight while Mum and the new boyfriend have it off on the lounge, or copping a tirade of abuse for wanting to go to Dad's place for the weekend or ending up in hospital because Mum's new bloke didn't like getting interrupted by the kid asking for something to eat. You've not expressed a word of sympathy for that vast majority of abuse victims who aren't sexually abused. As long as it's on Mum's watch, it's OK by you, eh?

Gee, that was easy; I'm starting to see why you like this style of posting. It's much less effort than presenting an actual argument.

Cue CJ saying "I agree with Severin"...

I agree with Severin.

I hesitate to get back into this topic as it seems to be a never ending circle of getting nowhere but Severin is copping a lot of unnecessary abuse for simply stating the bleedin' obvious. That is, the manufacture of child porn means that children have been abused. What is the mindset of those who wish to download this stuff, the user is in effect accessing a product which has led to the severe and sometimes fatal abuse of a child.

What sort of society would say abusing children for the purpose of CP is wrong but no worries mate go ahead and access it, no problems at all.

rstuart and antiseptic your calls for freedoms would be better utilised in areas that actually don't involve illegal behaviour. They are illegal for good reason.

One can argue about restricting access for a father who has been found guilty of looking at child porn as a loss of freedom, but this is misplaced IMO no matter which way it you try and package with a pretty bow as a rights issue. To argue that restrictions like this do more to destroy families than to help them is plainly ridiculous. Especially in this story as the children do not want access.

It is hard to believe this thread has gone on for so long to defend some scumbag's right to download or possess child porn.

There must be better causes you can hang your hat on.

@pelican: What is the mindset of those who wish to download this stuff, the user is in effect accessing a product which has led to the severe and sometimes fatal abuse of a child.

Maybe it isn't much different from people who watch those compendium's of fatal accidents on TV?

@pelican: What sort of society would say abusing children for the purpose of CP is wrong but no worries mate go ahead and access it, no problems at all.

I don't know pelican. I don't think such a society exists. You apparently do, so maybe you could describe it. If you can imagine people risk the sort of sanctions we put on paedophiles merely to make a few dollars selling pictures of abused kids, then who knows maybe you can imagine the sort of society that would accept them. I can't.

@pelican: rstuart and antiseptic your calls for freedoms

The only people who have used the word "freedom" in this entire thread are you and Severin. No one but you two have argued this is about freedoms. And now you two try to score points by claiming others do! Do you know what a hypocrite is, pelican?

@pelican: It is hard to believe this thread has gone on for so long to defend some scumbag's right to download or possess child porn.

I am glad you find it hard to believe, because it is wrong. What would be difficult to believe is after us go at it hammer and tongs for 43 pages by Severin's count, you thought this was a discussion about that fathers right to download porn.

Except you do believe that, don't you. You really think my prime motivation is the father should be allowed to download porn, and to hell with the kids.

Right now, I am at a total loss at how to explain to you what this has been about. I suspect it is impossible.

Benk:

Thanks for the offer of the deal but there is no reason to make such a deal.

You are partially correct that people try to discredit feminism by quoting Andrea Dworkin; you suggest your own awareness that in fact she is MISquoted, which I have found invariably to be the case. I would expect any person with integrity to want to present any quote they're using honestly. On the other hand Dworkin, like many other prominent advocate/writers, has been controversial even amongst feminists. That's ok - it's as it should be.

As to your concern that the proposal that pornography in general is not reflected accurately in the scenario; that's arguable (maybe you're confusing it with erotica) but irrelevant. I am telling you how violence in pornography makes ME and women LIKE ME, feel. These are my feelings; I own them. MY FEELINGS tell me, and incidentally research verifies MY FEELINGS as valid, that constantly portraying women and children as sexually desirable when they passively (and sometimes happily) welcome degradation and abuse, reflects the degree of regard in which some humans are held in the wider community.

We have endless bleating on here (including in a recent OLO article) that men are being devalued in society. My scenario says that, until men and boys are portrayed in the ways that women and children are portrayed for male sexual pleasure, men can consider themselves well regarded (as most men are).

cont'd to Blenk:

Since you raised the topic of violence in pornography, however, research covering content analyses of pornography indicates that violence is prevalent.

"... what appears to be a first in pornography content analysis research, we found an additional particular sex act that can arguably be placed in the category of degradation: the “azs-to-mouth” sequence, which appeared in nearly half of the scenes. In an analysis of the meaning of that act, Dines (2006) states:

One of the newer marketing ploys in gonzo is called ATM (ass to
mouth),7 where the male performer anally penetrates a woman and
then sticks his penis into her mouth, often joking about her having
to eat sh/t. In this pornography the code of debasement is most
stark. There is no apparent increase in male sexual pleasure by
moving directly from the anus to the mouth outside of the
humiliation that the woman must endure. (p. 286) If we accept Dines' argument and add "ass-to-mouth" to the category of degradation, the frequency of women being degraded in current popular pornography is phenomenally higher in our findings than in any of the previous studies.

Aggression and Sexual Behavior in Pornography 24 Our study also indicates an unequivocal rise of aggression in pornography. Past estimates have ranged from 13.6% to 27.9% of scenes in adult films containing aggression (Barron & Kimmel, 2000; Cowan et al., 1988; Duncan, 1991; Monk-Turner & Purcell, 1999).

Our study found 48% of scenes portrayed verbal aggression and a full 88.2% portrayed physical aggression in some form. If we combine both physical and verbal aggression, our findings indicate that nearly 90% of the scenes contained at least one aggressive act, with an average of 12 acts of aggression per scene. The prevalence of aggression and violence in our content analysis has repercussions for potential effects on viewers (e.g., Donnerstein et al., 1987; Linz et al., 1987)."

You have your view of pornography. I think anyone watching it becomes desensitized to what it's portraying and what those portrayals say about how women and children are valued in society.

- and btw: I agree with Severin.

- and btw: Antiseptic you have posted that misinformation before and I showed you the judgment then, so your information should be more accurate by now. According to the family court document the judge didn't classify the porn-father's crime at the lower end of anything.
He wasn't just watching cartoons or even just watching; but also re-recording. You also forgot to mention that the father was "badgering" his daughter and had been caught with his trousers down and apparently aroused, at his (? 5 yr old at the time I think it was) daughter's bedside where she was also sans pyjama bottoms.
- The father excused his behaviour by blaming his missus and saying that he was impulsive when using marijuana to relax.

Another obvious problem is that the father said that the girls needed to go through his bedroom during the night to use the bathroom. I don't see how putting a lock on their bedroom door to keep him out is going to stop them from needing to go through his room during the night. Supervised day visits seem to me to be the best solution.

Pelican, thank you, your post was most timely and perfectly expressed the point that I and others are making:

The use of children to create pornography harms those children.

The possession of such porn is rightly illegal and the behaviour of the father in Patricia Merkin's article is verifiable.

The portrayal of anyone being harmed or abused (whether the person has given consent or not) for the pleasure of others is quite rightly questionable. Would Rstuart & Anti like to watch porn where men have their genitals crushed for the titillation of others? What would they say about people who liked seeing men humiliated the same way women and children are? Fact is, this type of 'entertainment' is as far from the right to freedom of expression as caging animals is about humane farming.

I agree with Pynchme.

Pynchme

Please don't let our history cloud your interpretation of my views. I would never watch that type of porn, I don't defend it and I suspect that few people would. Therefore, I still argue that it is unreasonable to generalise about men from the existence of this porn.

I understand that you are upset, but I suggest that you reserve your anger for the people who actually create a market for this type of porn.

RStuart

I believe that there are some people in our society who would abuse children, were it not for the strong taboo against this behaviour. While I agree that it is possible to photograph a child semi-naked without hurting them, making possession of these images legal sends a dangerous message to a part of our society.

There is undoubtedly a lot of bias against fathers in the family courts. In an effort to address this, courts seem to be awarding some fathers automatic rights without taking into consideration the particulars of each case. Some men, as some women, do not deserve to have custody of their children but the Courts make no effort to delve into the particulars of each case. Is it laziness, lack of time, apathy, a quick fix to a bad bias against fathers? Clearly in all cases the welfare of the children should be of paramount importance, obviously in this case it was not, as I suspect in many many other cases. To argue that a woman has automatically greater rights to custody just because biologically men cannot conceive and give birth, is an insult to all the fathers who care deeply and love their children as equally as their mothers. A great number of women use their children as weapons to punish their partners for not being what they imagined they would be, or fall out of love with them, or because their partners are out of love with them and decide to separate. So this is their revenge, use the fathers as cash cows and with the help of the courts, deny them custody or in some cases limit their access to the children they know they love. Where is there justice in the law? Why not take the time and put in the effort to evaluate each situation carefully and thoroughly and ascertain that these decisions are indeed in the best interests of the children, not in either of the parents alone? Is the law indeed just an ass?