Spare a thought for four lost lives. May they rest in peace
By LORNA KNOWLES Court Reporter
October 25, 2003

THERE were no tears, no signs of remorse.

As she stood up yesterday to receive a sentence of 40 years for killing her four babies, Kathleen Folbigg showed no emotion.
As Supreme Court Justice Graham Barr signalled she would not be sentenced to life imprisonment, Folbigg's expression went blank. It was as if she had stopped caring.

Folbigg's reaction couldn't have been more different than when she was found guilty five months ago of the murder of her three babies and the manslaughter of a fourth.

Then, she doubled over in agony, crying loudly each time the jury foreman declared her guilty.

Her husband Craig Folbigg, the Crown's key witness against his wife, also showed little emotion yesterday and ignored requests for a comment on the sentence.

He also declined to comment on reports had done a deal with celebrity agent Harry M. Miller.

With a non-parole period of 30 years, Folbigg will be 66, well beyond child-bearing age, when she is eligible for parole.
In May, a Supreme Court jury found Folbigg had murdered her children Patrick, Sarah and Laura – aged between eight and 19 months – between 1991 and 1999 in Newcastle and Singleton.

She was also found guilty of the manslaughter of her eldest child Caleb, who was 19 days old when he died in Newcastle in 1989.
Justice Barr said Folbigg would always pose a risk to children.
He found the murders were not premeditated but were the result of Folbigg's inability to cope because of depression brought about by severe childhood abuse.

"The stresses on the offender of looking after a young child were greater than those which would operate on an ordinary person because she was psychologically damaged and barely coping," Justice Barr said

scout, thanks for your comments. Reasoned polite discussion is possible, it's just that some choose not to engage in it. I enjoy the process when I have a different POV to someone else on the site and we are able to have a discussion that does not become name calling.

cabbage - it is really sad that some dress up lobbying for special perks for their own gender as child protection.

If you've followed the links I posted early in the thread regarding substantiated child abuse and neglect as well as the child death review link it is really obvious that fathers are no more a risk to their kids than mothers. I've not seen any local stats on abuse or deaths during "access" visits, they do happen but stuff I saw from the UK some time ago suggested that they are very rare. I don't have a reference for that. It would be interesting to see stats directly relating to shared parenting and incidence of substantiated abuse and neglect as well as child death. My guess is that the rates would be reduced owning to the lessened pressures on both parents.

The rates of abuse in single parent households compared to the rates for the general population should be enough to have anybody who cares about child protection screaming for an end to one parent having most of the care of a child.

R0bert

Another possible explanation for the inclusion of “reasonable” in Family Law’s fear of violence assessment, is to exclude men from making such allegations in future. This measure makes even more sense when viewed in the context of protection for women. “Reasonable fear”, could then be compared with other dangerous activity expected of men.

Paula Totaro in SMH this morning writes that girls are becoming increasingly violent - no longer nice … sugar and spice.

“IT'S been dubbed the phenomenon of the violent femmes, an ugly social trend identified in the US and Britain. Now, it is being documented in Australia - and the numbers suggest this is not a mere statistical blip.

According to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, violence among young girls has grown at almost four times the rate of its rise among young boys - and has doubled over the past 10 years.”

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/mean-girls/2006/04/07/1143916722751.html

When interviewed by SMH Professor Garbarino (author of See Jane Hit (Penguin Press, New York), is quoted in part:

"By and large, society and parents do a reasonably good job with most boys and there is no reason we can't do a good job with most girls … but people, teachers, coaches, they have to get it into their heads that things have changed," he said. "We cannot assume simply that girls are just naturally nicer, naturally more gentle. A fixed feminine nature is not true and there is much variability there. People in schools have not caught up yet … they see more girl fights but they're scratching their heads with the girls. They don't take it as seriously, don't want to be too punitive. What we need to do is have all the things in place that we use to deal with and socialise aggressive boys and apply the same with girls.

"We cannot presume that culture will take care of it because this culture does not. Not any more."

Dear Scout
a more complete picture of 'you' is slowly but surely emerging here...
yep..I am keeping track :) for not for evil... indeed for good.

So far

1/-You were married to a 'Christian' with whom you were sexually incompatable and u refused to be 'born again'.
2/-You have been raped. (by the same man ?)
3/-You view my approach to the Male Female relationship as expressed in Scripture in very negative terms.

Is it possible, that you are interpreting my position in terms of your own experience ? rather than as I actually express it, which includes an emphasis on sacrificial leadership, not domineering.

By and large, there are very few times when a man has to exercise that scriptural position, I even have to scratch my head to think of any. Mostly life is just get along with each other, and do what needs to be done.

There is one gap in your story which I would appreciate knowing a little more about if u don't mind. Your reference to his desire for you to be 'born again'...
Did that have anything to do with speaking in tongues and baptism in the Spirit ? I mean..was he pressuring you to experience those ?

SEEKER that 'quadrupling' of female violence is quite a worry, but then, it maybe the 'reaping' that the feminist lobby did not expect when they sowed "equality" and rejected the idea of different social expectations based on gender.

I know one thing, by and large the young Australian female today is a most UNattractive person, often the better looking she is, the worse she behaves or the more extreme her attitude. I feel we need to revisit gender roles, with responsibility, love and respect being the framework for both. But I see no problem with emphasizing social roles which produce a 'team' rather than 2 full forwards in marraige.

BD, definately good to have a team as long as you use the right person in the right role. There is no reason to assume that our dangly bits equip us to be the leader.

Seeker, it may be possible that part of that shift is an increased willingness to acknowledge female violence and a change in cultural attitudes. As I said to Scout earlier I'd strongly recommend a read of "When She was Bad" by Patricia Pearson. She sums up part of the issue with the following statement

"As long as patriarchs and feminists alike covet the notion that women are gentle, they will not look for the facts that dispute it. Hrdy has suggested that one reason other primatologists continue to assume males are the sole aggressors is that what females do doesn't look like violence. In other words, one reason women dwell outside the discourse on aggression is because of the tendency of scholars to define aggression in a specifically masculine way."

The author suggests that "aggressive display is a cultural practice" and discusses differences in the level of violence used and the social support/sanctions regarding the use of violence. She discusses the relatively low levels of violence on the island of Vanatinai "where men and women are held to be equal in economic, political, marital, and sexual relations." and "In that particular culture, both sexes are expected to curtail verbal and physical aggression." During the study period refered to there was a very low level of witnessed physical violence in the community although the alternate use of sorcery in grudges might distress some more that physical violence.

I'm heading off on holidays tomorrow so may not get further opportunity to participate in this thread. Thanks to all for the interesting discussion.

R0bert

Anyone who thinks that women are less capable of violence than men have never watched New Zealand play Australia at netball.

An interesting sidelight to this topic is the example in the news at present about Jacqueline Gillespie Pascarl and her two children 'abducted' by their father. What no-one in the media has bothered reminding people about is that Gillespie brought the two children to live permanently in Australia without their father's permission, after lying about why she wanted to bring them here, after cleaning out the bank accounts.

In effect, she abducted her children from Malaysia and brought them to Australia.

The Australian courts believed what she said when she filed for divorce in Australia, and she received 'residency' of the children. I guess it helped that she was young, articulate, attractive, and Christian, when compared with the Islamic Malaysian prince whom she had freely chosen to marry. (I wonder what would happen if Princess Mary of Denmark abducted her baby and brought him to Australia?)

The father was granted access visits, and during one of these visits the children were covertly taken back to Malaysia. I guess the Haig Convention didn't help him, so he decided to help himself.

The Australian authorities tried to have them returned to Australia, but, not surprisingly, the Malaysian government did exactly the same as what the Australian government had refused to do when asked to return the children to their country of origin.

I would suggest that anyone who is interested follow this link:

http://www.malaysia-today.net/MMblues/2005_03_28_MT_MMblues_archive.htm

the opinions expressed there may not be 100% accurate, but are probably as accurate as those expressed in the Australian media.

The children now appear to be well adjusted, wanting to have access and get to know both their parents better. They appear not to have been adversely affected by their lives in Malaysia, and have freedom of movement and expression.

So, where does this leave us in the discussion about family separation and the welfare of the child?

I cannot answer....