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.