“Why do state agencies censor data showing the risk that biological fathers pose to their children?”

Because they can.

And they have continuously censored data relating to de facto relationships, and continuously censored data relating to single parent families.

Who is most likely to censor such data, and where were they educated are the more pertinent questions.

So men (not always the father) kill more children than women.

And I also got that it is near impossible to find the stats.

Mothers seem to lead the abuse and neglect stats in the stats found.

There was mention of scant resources at the end, really?

I have no idea what point the article is making or what it had to do with the title. And why give us stats then indicate they were unclear or incorrect?

I dunno Houel, some groups look for bad things done by one person and turn it into a gender, race, age, religion, ad infinitum issue. I’m sure they are all parts of the whole not to be confused with a whole part.

In general a white man in the west probably gets a little more sympathy than a black man. I’m just hoping a group of them don’t arrive on OLO and throw stats at us and begin pointing out every horror they can attribute to white men proves how innocent most of them really are.

Snag you want all children awarded to fathers? Except for that "tiny minority" of fathers at fault. So in the case of two good, stable, loving parents you want the father to automatically get full custody and all property?

R0bert!

pelican you ask "Where is the demonisation, both men and women are accountable."

It's in the publicly funded campaign's about violence against women with no mention (or counterpart) about violence by women.

It's in the campaign to unwind shared care if there are unsubstantiated accusations of abuse (have a look back through the posts of those supporting the proposed changes and see what their attitude towards fathers is).

It's in the way that "protecting women and their children" is used as a slogan.

It's in the high profile given to sexual abuse of children (a very small proportion of substantiated abuse) and the very low profile given to most other forms of abuse which don't lead to serious physical injury.

On this issue the demonisation is out there, it's not over sensitivity. The single mum's groups have fought hard against reform to family law using the spectre of abusive fathers as the cornerstone of their campaign.

R0bert

Robert,
"using the spectre of abusive fathers as the cornerstone of their campaign"

True.

And who is most in support of single (mother) parents?

I'm glad the article had a by-line. It's the only thing that offers clues about the author's contention. Indeed, much of the article seems to be leading to the point, then the rest seems to be defusing it. As far as I can tell (based on the evidence offered), biological fathers present no more risk to their children than their ex-wives' new partners. Apparently, depending on which set of statistics we are meant to accept, the mothers pose as much risk as either category. Hopefully this is 'part 1' of an article, because we need 'part 2' if we are to get to a clear point.

Houlley
Do you accept that this 'demonisation' is the greater public perception. The claims are highly overstated IMO and those negative views written about are more imaginary than any reflection of widespread opinion.

Men are generally more violent than women, the incarceration rates are evidence, but that does not hold that men are 'naturally' violent as a rule. I would suggest that many men in prison are themselves victims of abuse and neglect and some suffer from mental illness. How to stop the cycle of abuse is the million dollar question.

As some posters have alluded, the biggest risk to children is not from biological fathers but from defacto arrangements. There is no paternal bond between defacto and child, but this does not mean all stepfathers are violent or abusive just that the statistics indicate some raised risks in these arrangements.

Why do women stay with men who abuse? That is another aspect of accountability worth further investigation given the high level of support services for women. Are they adequate. I couldn't say.

RObert, DV programs are focussed primarily on women, authorities do tend to focus funding on the biggest area of need. It is a shame that violence is not treated wholly as a society problem, not just in terms of gender, but I think this is changing in response to street violence.

Women like the mother in Tasmania who prostituted her daughter with the help of her boyfriend are also monsters. One also has to question the integrity of all the men who paid money to effectively abuse this child with the full knowledge she was under-age. I don't accept that 100% of these men had no qualms about her age and vulnerable circumstances.

Sure bring on more honest statistics but don't be surprised if you don't get the statistics you are hoping for, the final word has to be for the protection of kids. There is no room for male/female ego in the pursuit of honesty around this subject.