Regarding the “statistics from the Department of Child Safety that highlight single mother homes as having the highest risk of child abuse…” and other such research. A study in the UK was used by a prominent Qld mens rights group to support their contention that women were the biggest abusers of children:

http://forum.dadsontheair.com/viewtopic.php?t=10822&sid=ec5f85a12c6b0aa26ef852189b8cd356

When asked the researchers stated:

“However, our study never claimed or attempted to prove that 'mothers are a greater danger to children'. In considering these findings about physical treatment at the hands of mothers and fathers we would make the following points:
o These figures also need to be located in the context that 10% of sample had never lived with a father one fifth of the sample had spent at least part of their childhood and 13% most of their childhood in a lone parent family (predominantly headed by a mother) (Cawson, 2002, p. 9 and 25).
o Featherstone makes the following point in relation to the above findings (i.e. 49% mothers, 40% fathers involved in violent treatment): ‘These figures need to be located in the context of the gender division of labour in relation to child care. Women are much more likely to be involved in the day to day care of children than men, so it would appear that given men’s relative lack of involvement in such care, the figure of 40 per cent is high and replicates similar findings (Featherstone, 1996 cited in Featherstone and Evans, 2004, p. 28).

Hence Dr. Flood's analysis that fathers rights campaigners used "highly selective use of research evidence".

He rests his case.

vanna,
The unique notion that a father claims that "he didn't do it" is not exactly new.

Do you really believe that the judicial system and evidence principles
are overturned merely with lies?

He said, "The Family Court have cut me off from my children effectively because of false evidence brought by my wife," Bill said.

In a court where a child porn downloading and child porn reproducing father stills gets to have the children overnight, it's gotta be pretty strong 'beyond reasonable doubt' level type evidence to achieve-
"The result was my kids were taken away from me."

Think about it.

Let's wait and see how the case unfolds before predicting the outcome and how it supposedly supports your particular agenda.

Oh, boy, where to start...

Let's start with happy who states that "the 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"

The study that you cite by Trocme and Bala actually reports that almost 50% of abuse allegations in child custody cases in Canada are "unsubstantiated" with social workers deciding that perhaps only 12% were "intentionally false". The authors also report that up to 60% of allegations in the US are unsubstantiated. So, happy, let's agree that at least half the cases are not real.

While it took time to access the journal article on abuse, the study by Brown et al (2000) actually states that "the proportion of child abuse cases was only 5% of the total children’s matters cases presented to the court in any 1 year." These statistics are consistent with the low levels of child sexual abuse by biological parents reported in NIS4.

The authors also argue that 9% of these cases were false - quite close to the 12% reported by Trocme and Bala. Further conclusions in the paper were drawn from a single source - an unpublished doctoral thesis by Sheehan on magistrate's decisions for child protection - hardly an accessible peer reviewed outlet.

Re:happy's lengthy argument on relative rates of abuse
If children are 10 times more likely to suffer abuse in homes occupied by the mum's new partner then the mother is guilty of child endangerment - regardless of whether she actually initiates the abuse or neglect in the home or not. This is simply not in the best interests of the child.

To pelican (and others) who are "not sure of my point".

Most reasonable people on here believe that abusive parents should not be given custodial rights to children when they may subsequently abuse them. *I also support this position.*

The NIS4 results suggest that sexual abuse by biological parents occurs at a rate of 5 cases per 10,000 children per year. Over a 20 year childhood, this represents a risk of 1 chance in a 100 of a child being abused by a biological parent (80% of the time by fathers, 20% by mothers). Fathers are four times more likely to sexually abuse a child, but 99% of all fathers DO NOT abuse their offspring. At the extreme, if we gave sole custody of all children only to mothers, we would certainly reduce sexual abuse rates - some 1600 children in Australia would escape being abused by their fathers every year (although 400 would still be sexually abused by their mothers). HOWEVER, 3.96 MILLION children would have no meaningful contact with their fathers.

Happy,
Which case below is a university trained feminist more likely to mention.

“Mother remains in custody charged with murdering only child”
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/mother-remains-in-custody-charged-with-murdering-only-child/story-e6frf7l6-1225843986946

“Man charged with throwing 4-year-old daughter off bridge in Australia”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/29/australia

I have never once known a university trained feminist to ever once say a single positive word about men or fathers, and no wonder this university trained author has a bigoted and prejudiced view of fathers.

If you would like some information on child abuse, (and statistics relating to such), contact the “QLD Commission for Children and Young People”

http://www.ccypcg.qld.gov.au/index.html

They have the statistics relating to child abuse that no university trained feminist, (or the feminist friend Michael Flood) will ever mention.

Suzeonline makes some excellent points but then states that, "There should never have been a blanket decision to allow 50/50 custody of children as a starting point in every case. That is just asking for trouble for children, and that is a tragedy."

Here is the issue. The presumption doesn't just affect cases at trial, it also affects how cases settle before trial. Happy would have us believe that only 5% of custody cases go to trial and all involve "real" cases of serious abuse and that therefore a presumption of shared custody is inappropriate.

We have already seen that at least half of these allegations that go to trial are NOT real. However, the 95% of cases that settle often do so because of established legal precedent. If most cases award custody to the mother (in the absence of tens of thousands of dollars of litigation) then most settlements will determine custody in that direction. If most cases award shared parenting then most settlements will err in that direction.

This is why retaining the presumption of shared parenting is so important. The vast majority of fathers (and mothers) are NOT abusers. Setting a standard that deviates from shared parenting denies millions of innocent children meaningful contact with a non-custodial parent (mostly at this time their fathers).

Men's groups argue that the harm from this far outweighs the benefit of protecting a tiny minority from abuse. Sadly, in fact, they are not even being more protected when separated from their fathers. Children are far more likely to be abused when co-habiting with non-biological persons.

No system is perfect. There will always be anecdotal cases of the "one that got away". Judging fitness for shared parenting will fail in some cases as will awarding sole custody to an unfit parent who directly abuses or allows others to abuse a child. Excluding a large number of perfectly good parents from their children's lives in the pursuit of zero mistakes is not only wrong-headed but plain wrong.