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.