H…q makes and interesting point. I agree running over ya kids in the 4WD is a bigger mistake than forgetting to put sunscreen on them. But the real issue here is failure to seek treatment for their injuries and allowing them to suffer.

Posted by ChazP, Thursday, 25 November 2010 10:43:09 PM

ChapZ a highly emotive post.

The plan fact is that it is much more likely to be mothers who neglect their children according to figures from child protection agencies.

A year or two ago, I saw a dad trying deal with 2 young child. I smiled, he was tying hard and he is on a steep learning curve, having to deal with children without the maternal gatekeeper supervision.

And it will be the best and hardest time of his life.

Children have an amazing capacity to survive the most incompetent of parents male or female.

Another thing is that children even in an intact household will play one parent off against the other, separation makes this perhaps more apparent and is just another hurdle to ove come.

Some parents may infact encourage this type of behaviour either vebally or non-verbally. Rewards such as lollie or ice-cream simply reinforces the behaviour.

but such manipulation is usually well and truly hidden. 'Oh she gets so distressed and usually settles down with a ice-cream, cuddle, story' etc.

Just like a child who tosses temper tantrums when shopping, buying them things, just reinforces the behaviour.

James - And your pretty observations of a year or two ago and one dad have exactly what to do with the topic? Was it his momentary freedom from 'maternal gatekeeping' that caught your eagle eye?

Observing that being a single parent is the hardest job in the world and its an evolving process influenced by zillions of factors might be acceptable. it's hard enough when there are two parents who can actually agree on stuff.

Most of my clients (of those who are single parents)do not start out expecting, planning to be, or trained for single parenting, and it gets a whole lot more complicated when the other parent is an ass whole. So, perhaps if that person changed their behaviour, there wouldn't be so many stats on poor outcomes for children of single parents. Because as summer follows spring, 'single' doesn't mean 'free of the negative influence of bad parents'. And as amazingly unbelievable as it will no doubt appear to the 'experts on my life here'(not) my clients may be men (yay) or wimmin (the crowd says 'boo!) or children (the crowd roars MINE!

<James - And your pretty observations of a year or two ago and one dad have exactly what to do with the topic? Was it his momentary freedom from 'maternal gatekeeping' that caught your eagle eye?>

Cotter

Heaps, Cotter Heaps.

Articles like this paint a very stark picture about fathers having contact with their children. I dont think I ever read a positive one about dads and their kids.

So you have clients that either makes you a social worker, pychologist or a counsellor.

Before I ever found research on maternal gatekeeping, it was some thing that I had already observed and theorized.

What I find really, really interesting is that there had been very little followup on this research. It almost like 'Oh we wont look at that anymore'.

But as soon as dads can be painted as being dangerous towards children, research pours out, like a tidal wave.

Gender bias, Nah I must be mistaken. There's no gender bias here.

I am sure in your professional capacity that you are aware of defense mechanisms.

<Compartmentalizing is the act of splitting an idea or concept up[1], on the principle that 'compartmentalizing experiences... prevents conflict stemming from the incompatibility of the two polarized aspects of self or other'[2]. Often, 'when the individual is confronted with the contradictions in behavior, thought, or affect, he/she regards the differences with bland denial or indifference'.[2]>

Because, JamesH, the issue is not about good dads. It's about unsafe dads. Not all dads, or even most dads, just the ones who are unsafe for their children.

It's not about denying fathers who have any respect for their children.

It's not saying 'all mothers are perfect no matter what they do', yet I have several who are good mums but who have been fined, put on bonds and even jailed for trying to stop the abuse and violence against their child. You do know that even people found guilty of crimes against children are often granted shared parenting or supervised access, no matter whether the child enjoys it or not. But you wont find many of them on places like this because they are not political - too beaten down. So I guess I speak for them to some extent.

Like the dad I saw, the other day. For him the real perpetrator was the mother's father. He said the father-in-law had perpetrated against his daughter (the mother-wife now) and that the kids were in danger.
So here we apparently have a father who did perpetrate against his daughter, and a father accused of perpetrating.

I am neither judge nor jury, My role is to advise.
McInnes is reflecting the stark reality of too many children's lives, those at the pointy end, not the ones who are tucked up safe in bed at night and left to sleep uninterrupted, but the ones who are not.

cotter, we all understand that some bad people exist. The problem with McInnes et al is that they expect laws to be formulated with no evidentiart requirements or consequences for making a false allegation.

It is the inherent capacity for misuse of those laws that is their flaw, not the intent to protect the most vulnerable.

McInnes, et al are intent on making men vulnerable to false claims by vindictive or venal women at a time when everyone is at their most emotionally stressed.

The great harm to the long-term future of all the people involved is simply not something that is of any concern to the professional agitators who write these cash-for-comment pieces.