I don't "blame" the family, nor do we know how "loving" they are or were during the family breakdown. I do know from my own experience that being constantly accused of something you've not done can have a very negative effect on the state of mind of the one accused. At the lowest point, one can even think "I may as well do the thing I'm accused of, since I'm being punished anyway". No, it's not rational, but that's the whole point. You, in your self-righteousness, assume that the mother's allegations were true, never examining any other possibility. It is also my own experience that allegations are treated very seriously by the police. If they weren't interested, as the family claim, then the allegations must have had little substance.

You have sought to shut down the discussion by implying that I am somehow callous, yet what if I'm right? It means that you, in your self-imposed role as "champion of the children" are condoning and encouraging behaviour that leads directly to the harming of children.

The real tragedy is that well-meaning, if misguided people make such allegations and something like this happens it is immediately leapt on by the vested interests to claim "all men are bastards", without any examination of the possible causal relationship between the making of the allegations and the final outcome.

The fact that you are unable to grasp the concept of a "self-fulfilling prophecy" may have a great deal to do with your own attitudes to cases like this. Frankly, an ideological approach such as yours is the last thing needed in these sorts of cases, where there has been such a catastrophic failure of rationality.

I can only hope that those charged with invetigating this can put the ideology aside and do their jobs to the best of their ability. We will have enough coattail-swingers doing their best to try to hijack the reults whatever they are. If the investigation is flawed, that will only add to the confusion.

The tragic case of Darcey Freeman is unfortunately the tip of an iceberg which every now and then becomes public enough for everyone to see. Journalists come out of the woodwork with their thinly veiled agendas which cover everything from gaining advertising revenue to using their positions to promote personal resentment for their own mistreatment as a child.

If their true concern was the well being of all children then they would be more even handed and realistic about what can be expected from government intervention in family relationships. The reality is that there are many more children suffering even worse torment in families where the parents still live together. Many families which look normal and happy from the outside can be living hell for children on the inside. Imagine being raped and have to live with your rapist every night. This happens but because it happens in secret and is not sensational it does not seem to warrant journalistic intervention. Why don’t journalists get outraged about this and use their power to do something about it?

Using sexual abuse and domestic violence as examples of behaviour that children need to be protected from is very suspicious since it is a fact that men are more often the perpetrators of these types of abuse than women. Are those types of abuse the only types of abuse? There are many types of child abuse and many types are the particular specialty of women. There are many very broken and dysfunctional human beings who come from families where they were never beaten or sexually abused.

When journalists are outraged they have a power which many of us do not have. They can use that power to fight for the rights of all children or they can use that power as a soapbox for their own unresolved resentment

Antiseptic I have no interest in replying to all your pts. You have little credibility all you write exposes you more and more.

I'm a little puzzled by your response, Antiseptic.

>>How about answering the question I posed: given the situation I described, how well do you reckon YOU'D do? It's a question that many men going through a family breakdown have to answer with their actions.<<

I thought I had made my position crystal clear.

99.9999% of people, faced with the same situation, would not throw a four-year-old girl, especially their own daughter, off a bridge with a view to killing her.

It is obvious that you have a personal axe to grind here, as does the author of the piece. It just happens to be a different axe.

My concern is the use of such an extreme case as a basis for any discussions on the very broad and deep topic of family breakdown. We don't know anything of the background circumstances, or who was doing what to whom. We have been inundated with speculation, jumped-to conclusions and press "story-packaging". To draw any conclusions from such flimsy material is unsafe.

By the same token, nor should press releases by grieving relatives should be used as "evidence". They are hardly unbiased observers, after all, and their hints and innuendo over what happened in the past will only point one way. That is to be expected, it is natural, and nobody can blame them. for it.

But again, difficult cases make for bad law. Extreme behaviour likewise makes a bad example from which to formulate policy of any kind.

Exactly Pericles.

Your point that both the author and Antiseptic have personal axes to grind is of course correct.

But both have particular experiences that are valid points to take into account.

Everytime a thread on the Family Court appears on OLO it underscores my belief, from personal experiences (husband's with ex), and posters that the adversarial court system is singularly destructive to both parents and children. I have absolutely nothing good to say about this system inspite of the fact that my husband 'won' eventually.

The whole process is extraordinarily damaging to children. The separation of parents when conducted civilly need not be traumatic to children at all. On the contrary, when a relationship really has broken down it should benefit children.

I think the FCA is the most hideous institution that enables, is complicit in endorsing and supporting, dysfunctional behaviour with the veneer of respectability and concern. Dysfunctional behaviour escalates, it can even infect the other party. It has no place whatsoever in determining parenting ability or well being of children. The law is not qualified to make judgments on that.

The person with the best lawyer 'wins', because that is how our legal system is set up to function. A child's only hope is that the parent without a personal vendetta is the one who wins and that this parent has boundless stamina (and money for lawyers) to withstand possible constant and continual legal onslaughts. Because custodial arrangements can be challenged and 'adjusted' via the Family Court ad nauseum over years. If one parent at any stage refuses to continue to meet a legal challenge than they 'lose'.

Pericles,

I have consulted friends in the mental health area.

Everyone of us has a breaking point, a point where we will go mad or become psychotic.

Sure it is extremely difficult to comprehend what happened. I speculate that he intended to take his own life as well.

A report in the newspaper that he had not spoken since being admitted to the psychiatric unit, suggests a possible catatonic state.