where it becomes filthy is where the woman dumps her man for someone else and then uses the 'abuse' card to ensure custody. It happens more often than one would like to think. Any father who does abuse his kids disqualifies himself from that position.

Severin you will only be beating your head against the proverbial brick wall on this one.

There is no doubt it is great news that father and son have been reunited. The father showed great restraint I thought about his wife's actions and demonstrated greater understanding and forgiveness when it would have been easier to be vengeaful.

It is disappointing to see all the anti-woman vitriole in the comments so far - and lets not pussyfoot about that is what it is.

Much nonsense about feminisation of society while all the time these same commentators would have no problems with reverting to a strongly unequal patriarchial past. Very hypocritical and denies the value that more feminine characteristics and attributes can contribute to society as a complement to masculine attributes. If anything some feminists by striving to be equal adopt some of those same male attributes thinking that this approach is the only valid one for entry into 'equality'.

If you saw the documentary about this man you will know that the wife took the son OS because she believed he was abusing him. Who would do less under such circumstances if you truly believed it to be so. The father described the situation that led her to this conclusion, and agreeably it was a flimsy interpretation of what the boy described that led her to make the choices that ensued. But she believed it to be true - even the father acknowledges this was her motivation.

Using the 'abuse' card in a marriage breakdown is despicable when it is unfounded and only used to gain advantage in custody disputes. It not only ruins an innocent man's life but the relationship between a father and his children, and diminishes and shrouds other abuse allegations in a cloud of uncertainty to potentially great detriment for children experiencing abuse.

Let's all try and retain a rational approach to these issues and not let negativity and bitterness get in the way of finding better solutions for the future.

Yet another anti-female article from the manly Mr. Marsh.
He has managed to turn a wonderful story of a man finding his son after so long, into an anti-feminist diatribe that only serves to taint the story of this determined father.

What I want to know from manly Marsh is exactly how he intends to turn around this apparent feminist-led era of 'fatherless homes'?

Will we force couples to stay together (married of course!) for the sake of the children?

Should the case be that a loveless marriage or an abusive marriage is preferable to a fatherless household?

No one ever disputes that a child is better off with both the parents living happily with them all their childhood years.
However, we all know that the 'happy, married God-fearing family' are few and far between now.

We can't turn time back to the 'good old days' pre-feminism, and when the man ruled the household Mr. Marsh, no matter how hard you pray.

"This is a well documented scientifically proven fact".

Where is the well documented scientifically proven fact Formersnag?

Please provide Australian results from Australian research and the relevant studies.

Thanks Formersnag in anticipation.

There are some very sad statistics mentioned in this article. And of course everyone becomes an instant family relations expert at the mere mention of single parents and its outcomes for children. This subject has as many drivers as cars on the road.

My involvement in a boxing club in our local community brings to notice the prevalence of single parents looking to present their sons to a tougher reality of life which organised boxing can do. That is a decision they make which is positive for the childs development, but sadly there is a trend. It’s a tough call for many of the boys when early on in sparing, tears are common, which is natural since boxing is personally confronting and often painful; but isn’t life?.

Aggression is a shocking encounter to many of the boys, but more-so to the mothers who quickly scoop up the son, never to be seen at boxing again. You draw your own conclusions from this. Here is mine. It’s a tough call, a single parent role for a mother. Many of them endure their own personal pain, loaded onto the added responsibility of sole parenting, while endeavouring to accept the “dreams” end of a failed relationship they often should have abandoned much earlier than they did.

There is a serious tendency to overcompensate with smothering protection. I am afraid that act of kindness is deprecating to a boy with an urgent need to find himself and rise to the challenges of life; which includes the physical challenges. It is why involvement in sport for these boys in particular is essential, I believe.

Through all the hype of this media event,two obvious questions remain, firstly, what fear prompted the mother to such elaborate behaviour to hide her child and herself from her husband, and secondly, what motivation prompts a husband to display such obsessive and exhibitionist behaviour in his attempts to find his wife and child?

I personally do not believe ken Thompsons mission should elevate him to hero status so soon

I agree Diver Dan, although I was loath to suggest that maybe there is more to this story than meets the eye.

I can't believe that the mother was so mentally ill that she imagined horrible abuses against her child, and yet had the presence of mind to hide herself and the child from authorities and all other support systems in foreign countries for two and a half years?

I sincerely hope it is all above board, although I guess the original Australian court ruling that the father have custody of the child must surely prove that he was the more fit parent- at least at that time?