A very selective little editorial, distinguished more so by the statistics it leaves out.

And given the little tyrade about no bias in the Court system against fathers/in support of mothers, the writer may want to explain this recent Criminal court judgment from Brisbane, reflcetive of the attitudes of Courts to women across the board.

Mum jailed for sexually abusing child has sentence suspended by Court

http://blog.fathers4equality-australia.org/equalparenting/FiDBlog.nsf/dx/mum-jailed-for-sexually-abusing-son-freed-by-court

## I am sure this is just another Court judgment that you and your group will sweep under the carpet, as you have done about the statistics from the Department of Child Safety that hightight single mother homes as having the highest risk of child abuse, by a fair degree.

pelican

To test what is being put forward by way of controls, what would you do with Tricia Brown (see link above) if she were interested in having children? Should her rights to motherhood, to adopt or to take a surrogate child be curtailed? What if she were to take a partner who has already got a child?

Similar problems with people who have (say) drug records.

Not taking any side here just wondering what better arrangement there could be apart from your earlier idea of not disclosing gender of the parents in the Family Court and then relying on the judge to do the best possible on the evidence available.

Ultimately it comes down to risk management not risk avoidance, otherwise no parent and certainly not the State (from its record in Australia) could have the custody of a child.

Whichever way though, gender should be removed from the equation.

Ashvani: The remainder of her court sentence was suspended; she has been in gaol since August last year.

The article doesn't say anything about whether she has care of her son; it's unlikely that the child is now in her care.

The abuse is revolting. I don't think she should have been released after just 6 months gaol and I don't think she should have care of any child. Supervised day visits IF the child (assuming he is old enough) agrees to it, at the most.

Presumably she would be on the child sex offender registry and undergoing sex offender treatment.

Cornflower
My thoughts on that case mirror those of Pynchme. It would be highly unlikely that Tricia Brown would ever be able to adopt or surrogate a child as her conviction would preclude her - rightly so. As far as getting pregnant that is unfortunately in the lap of the Gods, more's the pity.

I am unaware whether previous drug use would preclude a person from adopting.

There is no question that gender should be taken out of the equation in Family Law.

These debates always get into the tit for tat - you show me a case where a man is the perpetrator and I will show you a woman.

What is the purpose, when the most important aspect is ignored for sake of point scoring.

It is simply some mothers are bad some fathers are bad. We all agree on the bleedin' obvious.

Let's now move on to how we can protect kids from abuse and neglect, that's what we should be about. And if it means highlighting cases that on the face of it appear to deny those protections to children then they should be exposed.

Stev,
The author referred to the Family Court statistics that of all the couples that separate in Au, only 5-6% end up in the Family Court.
So your argument that "This opinion is full of anecdotes, anecdotes, and more anecdotes" immediately falls.
The argument that it's a "cherry pick[ing]" exercise also fails because the research findings that cases coming before the Family Court comprise cases of child abuse that is "real, serious and severe" means that this case is not a cherry pick but exemplary of the cases that the Family Court has to adjudicate.
You also stated that, “In conclusion, the author proposes circumscribing the presumption of shared parenting 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.”
You are using faulty logic because the study you cited (The Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect conducted by the US Department of Health and Human Services ) does not pertain to the incidents of child abuse in cases coming before the Family Court! You’re the one that has made the leap. For a study into the relevant field, try Trocme, Bala, False allegations of abuse and neglect when parents separate, Child Abuse & Neglect, Volume 29, Issue 12, December 2005, Pages 1333-1345. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7N-4HK04KV-5&_user=79777&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1269986137&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000006418&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=79777&md5=faabfcb641745660f2550e6edd38dae3
Rather than reframing the issue as “the author proposes circumscribing the presumption of shared parenting 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,” empirically and logically the issue is that author proposes circumscribing the presumption of shared parenting in the Family Court because it is clear that its core business is child sexual abuse that is real, serious and severe.

Response to Stev; Posted Friday, 26 March 2010 7:33:03 P

In the first paragraph of my comment, I used the word convicts instead of people in prison. I apologize.