Peterr, [deleted for abuse]
I have read the article about 7 times. [Deleted] I’ll walk you through it. The author introduces the subject matter by stating, “A recent decision by the Family Court of Australia suggests that it is out of touch with general community standards and reveals that the law needs further amendments”.
Then the author launches into the “reproduction of child exploitation material”. The author then uses this isolated incident (which fathers groups do not condone in any way, shape or form) to justify a complete change of family law and a fair attack I might add on fathers gaining custody of their children in general. The inference of the article is to basically impose her opinion on the reader by implying that one father has child pornography, therefore all fathers have child pornography that’s the end of equal custody. No trial, no hearing, done! The majority of the article is a rant on how fathers groups are this and that. Capped off by a selective quote from our favorite sociologist M. Flood and retiring Judge Carmody, who claims that the shared parenting laws have ruined his life! If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen I say. Therefore, the article is very selective and not impartial. Mr Flood is a seasoned anti father campaigner.
The author’s entire argument for a change in family law is unreliable and unconvincing. The suggestion that one father does so therefore all fathers do is brittle and incredulous and would be dissected in seconds by a competent barrister in a court room. A more plausible article would have given a realistic balance between mothers and fathers and the benefits for the children of the former relationship to share the love of both parents. Therefore, it is poor and erroneous journalism.
[Deleted]

Peterr hit the nail on the head with his comment above.
No one has ever said that NO father should have shared custody of their children on this site as far as I know.

Most right-minded people are simply say that THIS father who was so obviously a bit of a deviant in THIS one case should not have been given unsupervised custody of his daughter.

The fact that he was given unsupervised custody should send alarm bells ringing and serve to ensure it never happens in a court again.

>>> The fact that he (the father found guilty of possessing child pornography) was given unsupervised custody should send alarm bells ringing and serve to ensure it never happens in a court again. <<<

Exactly, Suzeonline.

Instead we have watched people attempt to:

Justify the viewing of child porn.
Vilify non biological fathers.
Denigrate the mother of the children in Patricia Merkin's article.

A thread filled with abuse and hatred.

None of the above mentioned goes towards protecting children from abuse and exploitation.

There is no demarcation between biological and non biological parents, people give birth to children, divorce, remarry, adopt children from previous relationships and have more biological children of their own - as Chazp has stated quite clearly.

That the people vilifying 'stepdads' and 'single/estranged mothers' all the while trying to justify viewing child porn as simply part of the diversity of adult sexuality, leaves me completely at a loss. What hope do children and truly loving parents have when, as the entire point of this article, children are left in the exclusive care of a person with proven and demonstrated paedophile tendencies?

rstuart - I'm afraid I can't keep up with your idiosyncratic logic. In this thread you've compared commercial production of child pornography with knitting, and men who actively seek out child pornography with those who drive their cars too fast.

You also claim that men who actively seek out child pornography are doing nothing wrong, while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge that the children who are the objects of it are harmed in its production.

Your interpretation of the court proceedings of the case that is the subject of the OP is selective, to say the least. You give absolutely no consideration to the testimony and wishes of the little girl who didn't want to stay overnight with her father because of his aberrant behaviour, which you simply ignore.

You are now attacking those of us who abhor child pornography. I really hope you don't have young children living in your house.

@CJ Morgan: commercial production of child pornography

My point was child pornography isn't produced for commercial reasons, and yet since you continue to insist it is it seems you missed it entirely. It does look to be the only justification you have for your position, so I presume you cling to it for that reason.

The internet has brought an indisputable rise in the availability of all porn, including child porn. During that time crimes against women and children have dropped. Yet if your myth were true crimes against kids must go up.

@CJ Morgan: You give absolutely no consideration to the testimony and wishes of the little girl

I do consider it, but I am a pleb reading a written transcript and I know my limitations. When I weigh the likelihood of me getting it right versus a judge with years of experience listening to liars and shysters, and who was there at the time and got to watch the faces and body language as the evidence was delivered, I'll take the judges opinion every time. If there was someone here offering an opinion who had the same depth of experience as the judge that would be different. But there isn't. There is just a lynch mob pushing their political barrows.

@CJ Morgan: I really hope you don't have young children living in your house.

Low blow. Like you, I personally find child porn very distasteful. Like you, if I thought distributing pictures caused child abuse, I would want it banned. But unlike you I am not prepared to jump to that conclusion simply because I find the pictures distasteful. I want to see evidence first. This is because, apparently unlike you, I am prepared to defend the right of everybody to do what the dammed well please in private, if it effects nobody else. Taking that stand would be a shallow exercise I only choose to defend things I personally approve of.

What is the definition of child pornography in the subject jurisdiction? Would it include for instance a nude photograph of a woman who could be taken as being under 18 years?