'Domestic violence is one of the greatest criminal problems facing the UK, accounting for a quarter of all violent crime (1). It is a pattern of violence that includes physical, psychological and sexual violence.
Crime statistics and research both show that domestic violence is gender specific - i.e. predominantly experienced by women and perpetrated by men (2). Any woman can experience domestic violence regardless of race, ethnicity or religion, class, sexuality, mental or physical ability or lifestyle: 1 in 4 women experience domestic violence at some time in their lives. It is women who suffer the most serious harm, intimidation, threats, rape, strangulation and post-separation violence, and are most likely to be killed by current or former male partners (3).'

1) Macpherson S (2002) 'Domestic Violence: Findings from the 2000 Scottish Crime Survey'; Kershaw C et al (2000) 'The 2000 British Crime Survey England and Wales' Home Office Statistical Bulletin 18/00
2) Research findings of 'gender symmetry' in domestic violence have been criticised for flawed methods including problems with sampling, a focus on physical violence only and ignoring the context in which the violence occurs - see Paradine and Wilkinson (2004) ' Research and Literature Review: Protection and accountability - the reporting, investigation and prosecution of domestic violence cases' CENTREX for HMIC / HMCPSI.
3) For example see Mirlees-Black (1999) 'Domestic violence: findings from a new British crime survey'; Dominy N and Radford L, (1996) Domestic Violence in Surrey'; Mooney J (1993) 'The Hidden Figure: Domestic Violence in North London'.

In Australia males outnumber females 76% : 24% as killers of children. The largest number of children 35% (n43) died as a consequence of a family dispute, usually relating to the termination of their parents' relationship and men were the offenders in all these incidents (26).) Strang, H. (1996) 'Children as Victims of Homicide' in Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice. No 53

"Contact is good for the child, even if it is with a parent who is violent"
There is no evidence to show that contact with a violent parent is good for the child. It is the nature and quality of parenting by the contact parent that is important, not contact in itself, and where there is abuse, parental conflict or domestic violence, contact is extremely damaging to children (14).

In 2000 a Court of Appeal decision (Re L) described domestic violence as 'a significant failure of parenting'.
Children who have lived with domestic violence need support, safety and a stable environment to recover from its effects. Children's emotional and behavioural problems are associated with their relationship with their father. The more fear and anxiety, the greater the problems. The longer children are away from a violent father, the greater the improvement in adjustment (15).

MYTH: Children are not being placed at risk by court ordered contact
FACT: A recent report stated that there are 'serious concerns that contact is being inappropriately ordered in cases where there are established risks' (18).
Since the introduction of court guidance on contact and domestic violence in April 2001, across England and Wales - at least 18 children have been ordered to have contact with fathers who had committed offences against children (schedule 1 offenders); 64 children have been ordered to have contact with fathers whose behaviour previously caused children to be placed on the Child Protection Register. 21 of these children were ordered to have unsupervised contact with the violent father. 101 children have been ordered to live with a violent father, often because he was living in secure accommodation in the former family home (19).
14) Hunt J and Roberts C (2004) 'Child contact with non resident parents' Family Policy Briefing
15) Jaffe, Zerwer and Poisson. Access Denied. The Barriers of Violence and Poverty for Abused Women and their Children After Separation. 2003
18) Hunt and Roberts Child contact with non-resident parents 2004
19) Saunders H and Barron J (2003) op. cit.

Antiseptic,
On Tuesday, 21 December 2010 6:05:35 AM you posted;
“Jewely:"Fair enough, tragic but it must be an unsound mind that does that. Doesn’t sound outdated to me. "

I agree it must be an unsound mind, but if a father does it, he goes to jail as a murderer for 10 years. If a mother does it, she gets a suspended sentence and lots of therapy. That's why it's outdated in the Brave New Feminist World.”

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/870624/mum-jailed-for-life-after-girl-starves

One starved dead child- mother in jail for life.

“Her husband, who "could not have cared less" by not coming to her aid, will spend at least the next 12 years in prison, the court was told.

After a five-week trial, the girl's 36-year-old mother was found guilty of her murder and her 48-year-old father was convicted of manslaughter."

I think you are operating on “male ideological” presuppositions.
Feminism is actually good for males because it assists the marginalised male demography. Feminism is actually rejected by those that stand the most to gain from a white male landed elitism.

http://www.unisaustralia.com/2010/07/16/infants-struggle-in-shared-care-report/

Infants struggle in shared care while rigid, shared parenting puts school aged children at risk. Children aged under four and school aged children could be put at risk developmentally through shared parenting arrangements following separation.
Findings show conclusively that rigid arrangements of any kind, often fuelled by acrimony and poor cooperation, and set out in court orders, are associated with higher depressive and anxiety symptoms in children and this form of living became something children often sought to change.
‘A cooperative parental relationship and a history of warm, active parenting before separation are key to school aged children doing well in any care arrangement,’ she added.
Findings imply that shared care – when children stay overnight with the non-resident parent five nights or more a fortnight – for very young children should not normally be starting point for discussions about parenting arrangements.
‘The negative impact on the emotional and behavioural functioning of this age group is significant.
The study found that shared care arrangements were less stable over time than primary care arrangements, and that rigid arrangements had a significant impact on children and mothers but not fathers.Boys in rigidly sustained shared care were most likely to have Hyperactivity/Inattention scores in the clinical/borderline range.
‘Fathers with shared care arrangements were the most satisfied with the arrangement, despite reporting higher levels of ongoing conflict about parenting and poorer dispute management,’ she said.
The second study investigated infants and toddlers in separated families using data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children.
In infants under two, the study showed that overnight care with the non-resident parent once or more a week was independently associated with high irritability and more vigilant efforts by the infant to watch and stay near the resident parent.
In children aged two to three, shared care at five or more nights per fortnight was associated with lower levels of persistence –playing continuously, staying with tasks, practicing new skills, coping with interruption – and more problematic behaviour – crying or hanging on to the resident parent, high anxiety, being frequently upset; eating disturbances and aggressive behaviour.

Chaz:”In infants under two, the study showed that overnight care with the non-resident parent once or more a week was independently associated with high irritability and more vigilant efforts by the infant to watch and stay near the resident parent.
In children aged two to three, shared care at five or more nights per fortnight was associated with lower levels of persistence –playing continuously, staying with tasks, practicing new skills, coping with interruption – and more problematic behaviour – crying or hanging on to the resident parent, high anxiety, being frequently upset; eating disturbances and aggressive behaviour.”

Grownups make me puke for a variety of reasons but the above pretty much sums it up (because I have lived it over and over). No empathy when in some warped competition with another adult/agency. I’ve seen it from parents to foster parents to agencies wanting their money fast - I’ve seen children begging in the streets of other countries that are happier and less screwed up than Aussie kids. I wonder at which point the children became property/weapons/chattels here…. Nah I don’t care... 34k children and counting in Australia that no one is interested in because unless topping up bank accounts they remain rather off topic.

When you allow the outsourcing of care and protection of children what do you expect…someone to care about your families?

Quid pro quo peoples.

Jewely - In research studies in America of adults who had been in Foster Care in their childhood, 28% stated they had been abused while in Foster Care. This is of course, proportionately far greater than the likelihood of a child being abused in the general child population. It may be reasonably stated therefore that a child is far more likely to be abused while in State Care than by being out of State Care. There is also a far greater likelihood of children who have left care becoming part of the prison population, prostitution, drug and alcohol addiction, and marital failures. New Zealand and many European countries use Kinship Care as their primary care methods where children are kept within their extended families until it is safe for them to return to their natural parents, if that is a realistic objective.