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?.