http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/alcohol-key-factor-in-criminal-kids-20110225-1b7ws.html

"Mothers' alcohol abuse is a stronger indicator of antisocial and criminal children than rough neighbourhoods, a new study has found."

My point is that either parent maybe be a risk to children.

Yuri, the media loves it when men can be shown as the perpetrators, there was a flurry of article after darcy freeman trial.

Quote "I was concern about the welfare of my children" then the call came for such concerns to be taken seriously.

Every single parent worth their salt, are concerned about the welfare of their children.

You're surprised about the fury around the Freeman case given the backstory?

It seems inevitable these subjects become the catalyst for gender wars. Of course “neither sex has a monopoly on vice or virtue".

Where is the demonisation, both men and women are accountable. It gets on my wick a bit, this oversensitivity around gender. You can't read about a crime committed by a man these days without someone bringing up all follies of women as a counterfoil. It is as if reminding people of the crimes commited by women will make a difference to the tragedy of the crime. It is not a competition.

Look at the press around the Keli Lane case. Are women demonised because of this one woman's actions? No, of course not.

Bottom line is any scenario where children are killed is a tragedy regardless of the intent of the perpetrator - it all results in the same tragic end.

It is no surprise that acts of revenge will be perceived much more strongly than the act of a mentally ill person (regardless of gender). Sometimes it is that simple.

The reality is authorities cannot always make the right call as regards child safety based on the information provided and sometimes they get it wrong.

People are not that stupid. The reaction is the same towards those who use the statements of a radical feminist as indicative of all feminists - most people don't fall for that approach and self-serving agendas are usually that transparent.

Indeed, censoring data will negatively impact on the formation of appropriate child abuse policy. It is only when all the facts are available, that weaknesses in the system can be identified and improved. That may be in the form of extra supports for single parents, those with mental disorders, better counselling during relationship breakdown etc.

If one really believes in the statement - “neither sex has a monopoly on vice or virtue" - why don't we just live by it instead of complaining if one of our own sex is arrested for a crime.

The best predictor of children at risk is not education, income, aboriginality etc... it's simply when a child does not have both natural parents caring for him!

This evidence-based data shows that the risk of child abuse in single-parent households is 2300% times that of children living with both natural parents !

Nationally child-protection authorities have tried to deny the existence of this data and refused to release it. Only WA has provided meaningful data. Effectively these bodies are saying that they have no idea of the main risk factor for child abuse!

Putting this into perspective, we all believe smoking ‘causes’ lung cancer. Statistically, the risk of lung cancer in smokers is 120% that of non-smokers. But the risk of child abuse in single-parent households is 2300% times that of children living with both natural parents ! (96%/4% = 23) Children need BOTH NATURAL parents.

Our volunteer attempted to obtain the same data under FOI (why is it no longer freely available?). The various state child protection departments variously claimed not to have any information or that it would be prohibitative to extract the data from their databases. If this is true, it is an admission that they have no idea of the risk factors for child abuse!

PartTimeParent@pobox.com

'It is no surprise that acts of revenge will be perceived much more strongly than the act of a mentally ill person (regardless of gender). Sometimes it is that simple.'

Yes, but often when a women does something heinous, she is considered in need of counselling, support or some assistance. It's considered 'out of character' for a 'nurturer'. We look to find an excuse as to why a *woman* would do such a thing.

When a men does something heinous, well, that's just men for ya. It's the 'innate' brutal nature of men. It's testosterone, or nasty male aggression, men's attitudes to women, misogyny, Male 'culture', The Patriarchy, you name it.

Women are mad, men are bad, or as I like to say, 'Acting their gender'.

We look to help women and punish men.

When a woman hurts her child, she must be depressed, in need of better support systems, counselling. We have let her down as a society.

We just look to punish men, or keep them away from women and children. At the very least, we look to 'educate' all men so that these men, as a gender, don't keep doing that. There is no culture of support, or any feeling that we have let these men down at all. There are no excuses.

'Look at the press around the Keli Lane case. Are women demonised because of this one woman's actions? No, of course not.'

There is no movement to highlight each and every woman's actions as a slur on their gender. Correct. So why is there when it comes to men. Look at the recent defence forces scandal. All the talk about a 'male culture', misogyny, Men's attitude to woman. Can you imagine any of this talk if a male nurse was bullied at work or his female lover was indiscreet?

Every heinous act by each individual man is included in a continuing narrative of 'men', and 'men's attitude to women'.

Whenever the raw data has been available, the sad facts show that "dead beat mothers" outnumber the dead beat dads several times over. But still "pelican" & all the other FauxMANistas continue to promote the neglect & abuse of children.

It is high time, we went back to time honoured systems of family law, that WORKED to protect children. Where the custody of children & all family property automatically went with the father, unless, "via a fault based divorce law" it can be shown that in the tiny minority of cases where it does happen, that the father, is "at fault", then the mother & children can be protected from him.

That is exactly how our divorce laws used to work until the Closet Communist Corporate Paedophiles acted to destroy our society.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#