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.