Whilst I agree that there are differences between neglect and other forms of abuse I think in context with the point being made in the article about perceptions of who abuses children and the reality the diversion regarding splitting out neglect or a focus on child sexual abuse are diversions rather than valid rebuttals.

It is difficult for most of us to find credible breakdowns of substantiated abuse by gender of perpetrator and type of abuse (and I've not found a level of detail I am happy with).

Its also difficult to get a good handle on actual rates of abuse and neglect vs whats substantiated, numbers for overall rates ar to easily manipulated according to the agenda of the group making the claims. I suspect a lot of abuse either is not reported or can't be substantiated but substantaited cases are the best numbers available to try and avoid the excesses of agenda driven numbers.

A coverage of Australian numbers for substantiated abuse can be found at https://www3.aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/child-abuse-and-neglect-statistics

Emotional abuse is covered which was not something I recall from earlier version of the report. To highlight the nature of the diversion involved in a focus on sexual abuse, of 7618 substantaiated abuse and neglect cases in Qld in the period 350 were child sexual abuse. In NSW the proportions were far different however sexual abuse is still a relatively small proportion of substantiated abuse and neglect. For those who want to seperate out neglect the numbers are in the charts but I'm not convinced there is enough detail to do so in an honest manner.

R0bert

Hey guys,
Lets not this article be chopped up in the gender wars, feminism, the family court or abuse / neglect statistics.

I think we can all agree that family law is as imperfect as all of us and there will always be injustices.

Are there structural changes that could be made? Of course.

Let's focus on the article at hand though. How can men help other men? Is it a 'hey, what's up, want to go for a beer and shoot the breeze?' between men? Is it a heavier focus on mens mental health? It it a greater focus on both men and women to understand men more?

Men need men. Boys need their dads. Men need their dads, their uncles and their brothers.

Manhood can be a lonely road, especially if you want to walk the straight and narrow. Sometimes it will be hard. Sometimes it will feel like there's no support around. Men, you're not alone. There's no shame in having a chat with other blokes, getting some support and realising you don't need to walk alone.

Thanks Pete for bringing some good sense back into the argument.
I would add though that daughters need their dads too, and that women love and need all the menfolk in their lives too.

Dane, just think for a moment that you are one of the judges deciding on child abuse cases. If you give the accused the benefit of the doubt because you think the kids are being 'coached' to lie, and let them off, only to find they abuse the children later, then how awful that would be?
Yet, if you condemn someone for something they didn't do, it would be equally awful.

I think the courts do the best they can, and use the evidence they have been given.
I don't believe there is some great feminist conspiracy out there to target men.
That belief is just paranoid.

Suse,

'Dane, just think for a moment that you are one of the judges deciding on child abuse cases. If you give the accused the benefit of the doubt because you think the kids are being 'coached' to lie, and let them off, only to find they abuse the children later, then how awful that would be?'

This perfectly exemplifies what I mean.

How could any judge, in the context of an acrimonious divorce, possibly take any unsubstantiated claim of child abuse seriously? What a joke.

If it were true and the mother was only now bringing it to light shouldn't she too be punished for covering it up until the divorce?

What about the presumption of innocence? Hasn't that been around for around 1000 years?

It has been great to see some women sentenced to jail terms in the UK for making proven false rape claims. It's about time women were also held responsible for their actions.

Everyone knows that if a man holds up a bank with a fake gun he is still charged with armed robbery and faces 20 years in jail. Well, women have been getting away with using fake guns for far too long.

If you want me to take abuse/rape statistics seriously then punishments need to be just as serious for false claims as for actually offending.

You opinion is typical of feminists: better that 100 innocent man go to jail than 1 guilty man goes free.

Unless you are the accused man in these false accusation cases Dane, how do you know they aren't lying? How do you know the women are lying?

How many men accused of child abuse say " yep that's right, I did it."?
There are only very few accrimonious divorces that end up fighting over the kids in family courts, and you use these men as your pillars of goodness?

Neither you nor I know the real truth about what really happens in other family homes before break-ups.
It is up to the family courts to decide because that is the law, and I don't presume to know better than them.

Judges are expected to make judgements and there is a great deal of accumulated wisdom for them to draw on to help them make good judgements. In a perfect world they would have perfect information and they could make perfect judgements. Alas, this isn't a perfect world and they must rely on evidence adduced by self-interested parties who hope to thereby convince the judge that their case is the more meritorious or perhaps, less meritricious. The principles of jurisprudence must always guide the way to his decision, or an appeal will surely ensue.

The Judge must have regard to many things beyond the arguments presented or the relevant legislation and precedent, including the Practice Directions of the court, the potential for further litigation by dissatisfied parties, the possibility of negative publicity if the ruling is seen to be incongruent with the interests of third parties including advocacy groups and so on.

They don't always get it right, but I'd say it's remarkable that they ever get it right in the context of Family Law.

They would do even better if the public debate on Family Law matters was more nuanced, since there would very likely be fewer cases brought in which spurious claims were seen as a possible means of enhancing the power of a party's argument. We have had no-fault divorce for decades, after all.

I mentioned tribalism earlier and it seems to have failed to strike a chord. What I meant by that, in this context, is exemplified by the typical discussion on this forum on contentious matters, in which it's not uncommon to see dozens or more posts from a small set of people (who are obviously old sparring partners) which lead not to understanding or agreement, but reiterate what are essentially articles of tribal faith on both sides.

It's spear-shaking and shield-beating, ritualised and formalised and meaningless.

Surely all the clever tribespeople here can put their minds to finding a better way to go about things? Even the great Wall dividing Germany was eventually dismantled, after all.