GY, did you also see the statistics from the Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect conducted by the US Department of Health and Human Services? Children living with a biological parent and non-biological partner are 10 times more likely to be abused. There is clear and convincing evidence that children are more at risk in single parent households and when living with non-biological adults.

However, you must admire the way that the twisted feminist "logic" of Severin attempts to distort these findings:

"Another two interesting points drawn from this and similar threads are:

1. The persistent blanket denigration of single mothers...

2. The accusations against stepfathers and adoptive parents."

Facts become "blanket denigrations and accusations", rather than something to be acknowledged and integrated into policy decisions. Similarly, isolated anecdotes become problems of epidemic proportions whenever there is a chance to bash the male of the species.

Contrast this with the pro-fathers on this thread who have no problem acknowledging that some biological fathers are pedophiles and should be kept away from children (I estimate that around 1% of all children will be sexually abused by their biological father while under the age of 15 according to the Australian Personal Safety Survey given to us by Pynchme).

I do, however, thank Severin for acknowledging that most parents are good parents. This is exactly the reason I support a presumption of shared care.

An interesting debate is whether a custody case that proceeds to court should automatically violate the presumption of shared care. I agree with Pynchme that highly contested cases are not in the best interests of the children and are a form of child abuse by one or both parents.

However, if contested court cases somehow create a bias towards one gender or the other, litigants of the favored gender will quickly be advised by their lawyers to abandon settlement attempts and proceed to court, thus creating a perverse incentive for more conflict. It seems to me that a presumption of shared care reduces conflict and is thus in the best interests of the child.

'However, if contested court cases somehow create a bias towards one gender or the other, litigants of the favoured gender will quickly be advised by their lawyers to abandon settlement attempts and proceed to court, thus creating a perverse incentive for more conflict. '

Bingo. Hence the noise from people like the Author. It's exactly what they want. The thin edge of the wedge to bringing women back to their rightful place as the default option for custody. Any men who wants anything to do with children should rightfully be 'under suspicion', until he can prove himself otherwise. Possibly by 'being a man' and apologising for his gender perhaps.

Start with the few paedophile dads and extrapolate in an attempt to roll back any efforts and gains men have made to be recognised as a tiny bit more than mere furniture in their children's lives.

@Severin: sexual interest in children be it from simple observation through to actual sexual interaction with children is not a 'healthy adult' perspective.

I didn't say it was a healthy activity, any more than I would say driving cars too fast is healthy or smoking is healthy. What I do say is it is normal for healthy men to explore all those things.

@Severin: That non-biological fathers are a danger to children.

No one made an absolute statement like that. But many posters here, both male and female, have pointed out that non-biological fathers are more of a danger to kids than biological fathers. What's more, they have backed up their points with what look to me to be hard stats.

It looks to me you are reading this relative statement as an absolute one that in effect says kids in general are better off without non-biological father. I don't see anybody here claiming that to be so. Well, with the possible exception of ChazP.

@CJ Morgan: That sort of reasoning could be used to justify any form of sexual behaviour at all,

Rubbish. It does justify treating fast car driving as a misdemeanour. It doesn't justify that same behaviour killing someone, and we don't treat it that way. Compared to viewing child porn it is an extreme case as driving at 120 in a suburban street will almost certainly get someone killed one day, yet we still don't treat it anywhere like man slaughter. There is no evidence looking at child porn will cause the viewer to abuse children. None, zero, zilch. Yet you want to vilify the people who do it, treat them the same was as paedophiles. Sadly, the majority of society agrees with you, because it is now accepted practice to call people who only look at pictures paedophiles.

(cont'd...)

(...cont'd)

Vilifying such a minor crime just cheapens the word. It already has. When you see someone accused of being a paedophile in the paper, the first thought that springs to my mind is "gee, was he looking at Simpons cartoons or was he a catholic priest who serially abused children for 20 years". The latter is social disaster, but it is much more likely to be the former. That is thanks largely to reactions like yours, here.

@CJ Morgan: If rstuart's bothered to read the court proceedings that have been linked to numerous times at OLO

You want me to indulge in second guessing on the judge's opinion on the credibility of the evidence presented. I wasn't there, and I am not going to. If I thought for a second the judge knew with some degree of certainty the father was a danger to his kids and then made the ruling, then I would join the current lynch mob. But I don't, and what is more I don't see anybody else claiming that either.

You on the other hand have read the highly polarised reporting this case and drawn your own conclusions on the credibility of the evidence. Well fine, but to denounce me because I don't join you in this is unreasonable.

As it happens, from what I saw of the judges ruling a fair attempt was made at balancing the possibility the father might be a danger to his kids versus possibility he was not and denying the kids access to their father was damaging. If you make the reasonable assumption the judge had no idea how far both sides were stretching the truth, it looked like a good effort under difficult circumstances to me.

'it looked like a good effort under difficult circumstances to me.'

Oh come on. I bet he was eating dinner when children were being molested. Just like that Police Chief when the bush fires were burning. You're way too soft.

Gooddad, you've raged against the crux of this as you called it, trashy piece of journalism, but you've missed the point.
The Family Court is not willing to stop contact between a child and their father even when he is clearly a deviant child porn user. So if you believe, due to your own personal experience of injustice, that the family court is 'biased' against fathers, then you are betraying yourself and instead, shot your own foot when you claim inhumane treatment. No-where have you bothered to reflect on the inhumane treatment of children where its pretty obvious clear that they'r forced to see a sexually abusive father. I read between the lines, and your personal experience, in light of the contact culture in FC, betrays you.