Part 3
2009 cont'd - In two incidents, the fatal injuries were inflicted by domestic partners when the mother was out of the house. Both families were known to Human Services, Community Services. Table 59 shows the range of personal and family factors that could be identified from the information available to the Team at the time of reporting for these families.

The mother of one infant had previously lived in a violent relationship, it is not known if this violence was present at the time of the death. In the months leading up to the infant’s death there had been concerns regarding the mother’s mental health including a hospital admission for an episode of psychosis eight months before the death, and substance abuse. The mothers’ partner has been charged with manslaughter.

The mother of the other infant had also lived in a violent relationship, separating from the infant’s father soon after the birth of the baby. It is not known if the violence continued in the mothers current relationship. The infant’s father was serving a prison sentence at the time of the incident. The mother had been in out-of-home care as a child and had a history of self-harm and substance use. The mothers’ partner has been charged with murder.

In the other two incidents the perpetrator was the mother of the child. One incident occurred in the context of a relationship breakdown between the mother and the child’s father. It is alleged that the mother drowned her child and then attempted to take her own life. The mother has been charged with murder.

The other incident occurred in the context of mental illness. The mother had a history of depression, self-harm and anxiety for which she had received treatment. On the day of the incident the father returned to the house to find the infant lifeless in his cot with a note from the mother stating that she had killed her child to protect him from harm. The father found the mother drug affected in her bedroom.

R0bert

R0bert, I'm sure that Elspeth et al are grateful to you for pointing out some useful data to appear in the next report from the Bagshaw misandry factory.

As you know, I've done similar analyses in the past and the only conclusion to draw on the available data is that leaving children in the exclusive care of a single mother, especially one that has repartnered or has serial sexual partners is the most dangerous thing that a Court can do to the child.

Robert,
All this data would be known by the author, but they still present a biased potrayal of the situation.

This happens time and again with anything to do with gender, and the matter should come under investigation by the universities, as that negative and biased portrayal does not abide by the anti-discrimination policies of any university in this country that I know of.

An anti-discrimination department in a university can employ up to 5 people, and at present those anti-discrimination departments represent nothing more than a waste of taxpayer funding.

Anti-septic,
I would agree, and the statistics verify what you have said. However I have never heard an academic mention it.

To be an academic, it would appear that you have to agree with feminist theory, and that theory also entails denigration of fathers.

pelican,

'Expanding the definition of DV is not going to make a difference on the burden of proof. Proving that someone raised their voice or once shouted at a child, is just as difficult to prove as overt violence. Probably harder.'

Hahaha.

Would you rather attempt to prove

a) That someone punched their partner
B) That they either punched their partner , yelled at them, didn't allow them access to the credit card, discouraged contact with relatives, shouted at them or wouldn't let them watch TV when their favourite show was on (pick any 1)

And lets not forget, b), by virtue of being grouped under the same umbrella, is now equivalent to a). You're using the faint waft of abuse to imply abuse and using the same precautions against all 'abuse'. The whole principal is 'if there's smoke there's fire, ie a witch hunt.

Also, just look at the terms, suitably broad and malleable. 'emotionally manipulated'? Does crying count?

Answer this pelican, if it doesn't make it easier to 'prove' abuse, why are they recommending it?

'But which way should the pendulum swing - pro child or pro adult.'

My argument is that it is simplistic to think giving custody to a shouting parent is pro-adult. I think it is pro-child as well. I look at this whole thing as a child, I've been there with a manipulative shouting bi-polar verbally and sometimes physically abusive parent and I think I was still a lot better off than I would have been not seeing them.

Sure kids die, it's terrible and tragic, I get that. But there seems to be this focus on denying children flawed but still loving parents rather than helping said flawed and loving parents to be better people. As you said, some child deaths are not predictable or preventable. Lets be brave and accept we cant save them all, and have the courage to help children have THEIR OWN parents a bit more safely rather than taking the easy route of denying custody under the excuse of 'safety'.

I can't answer all those questions Houlley with any authoritative knowledge.

If the prime purpose of the Law is to improve child safety there will never be a perfect system that can satisfy the needs of all parties. Yes there should be some room for re-evaluation should the 'abuser' improve their demeanour by counselling or where the custodial parent is proved to be unfit due to an abusive defacto partner. Any defacto of either parent should come under the same scrutiny given the child will be under their care part of the time. The number of child deaths and abuse cases by the non-biological father is high.

Perhaps the broadening of the law was done with good intent to ensure real cases of emotional abuse are not missed, while there has been more focus on physical/sexual abuse. Then it is up to the Judge to make a ruling using the 'evidence' supplied including testimony from children (not only the parents) using their judgement. The Law applies to both parents, not just fathers.

However, without the law covering emotional abuse, severe cases are ignored. There has to be a point in this where the Judge's impartiality can interpret the law as appropriate in each individual case. Ruling some as overstated in some cases and some possibly as severe emotional abuse.

Some posters, on these Family Law issues, seem to believe that any women (or men) who fight for the rights of child safety are all out to get men - that this is their sole purpose and the child safety issue is a camouflage. These women are about 'safety' first and the Law applies equally to either parent. Where does it say that only fathers will be scrutinised under the Law.

These obsessive and continuous anti-women (dressed up as anti-feminist) comments do wear a bit thin.

Pelican

I believe that claims of DV or child abuse are routinely made up or exaggerated for personal gain and no amount of name-calling will stop me.

If lying, exaggeration and constant reminders of past arguments aren't emotional abuse, what is? Personally, I want kids kept well away from anyone who would tell their kids that the other parent is a child abuser when it is-not true.