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.