For society to address the problem first the statistics - with breakdowns, need be a lot easier to locate.

Those who write on the subject then need provide links to statistics they quote.

IMHO societies failure to offer easier access to private clinical - NON judicial, treatment for potential offenders who recognize their temptations, their potential to offend, is largely responsible for many NOT seeking assistance.

Whilst expected result is public identification, then being subjected to abuse, loss of employment, etc honestly, who do you expect to seek assistanc

All Barbara Biggs does here is present us with some statistics and draw some fairly straight forward conclusions from them. If you asked just about anybody in the street about the stats, I'd guess they would say they they are common knowledge. If you asked them about the conclusions, they would say they are bleedingly obvious.

So here is a definition for you. I'd say if someone writes a contemporary article that just states what everyone knows and draws the obvious conclusions and yet it reads like a breath of fresh air, then you are in the midst of a moral panic.

Great article and so true - the media focus on one or two cases when the majority go unnoticed.

For those who question the stats - one of many studies:

27.5% of females and 5.1% of males reported a history of sexual abuse in childhood in a review of seven Australian studies. (Andrews, G., Gould, B. & Corry, J. 2002. Child Sexual Abuse Revisited. Medical Journal of Australia 176(10): 458-459. Available online at: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/176_10_200502/and10179_fm.html)

An unfortunately true article that spells out something none of us really want to believe- that is that the paedophiles among us are more likely to be well known by us than strangers.

A paedophile that preys on children he/she knows are just as much a threat as those more rare paedophiles that prey on any child they can.

The old saying that 'what happens in a family, stays in the family' is still alive and well today.

Yet, as the author so bluntly states, we ignore this unspoken familiar paedophilia at societys' mental, physical and financial peril.

Just check the case histories of any psychologist or psychiatrist patient list and you will see sad, very sick stories of childhood sexual abuse by parents, siblings, other family members or family friends.
These, often secret,traumas suffered by these people have led to a lifetime of mental and physical illnesses.

Until we as a society accept that this continues to happen in all sorts of households, including outwardly 'normal' families, this terrible crime will continue unabated.
Listen to the children.

Ms Biggs, you say our laws silence children. What do you mean? Don’t the child protection authorities investigate allegations of sexual abuse? If they find corroborating evidence aren’t alleged offenders prosecuted or are you expecting the authorities to act on hearsay evidence only? Could you be more explicit with respect to how the authorities should deal with “such a plague”?

Australia is in denial about child abuse generally. There are 4 categories: neglect/emotional & psychological/physical and sexual abuse, each unaccepable and each can scar a child for life. Sexual abuse though unforgiveable is in % terms the lowest of the 4 and is the only abuse perpetrated more by males than females. Neglect is the highest % committed then physical & emot/psych and sexual is the lowest. So why highlight only sexual abuse? Could this be directed at males? In 1 state alone, figures collected from 05 to 08 from the child protection dept showing substantiated cases,in 3 of 4 categories of abuse, the female parent was the higher % abuser and male parents higher only in sexual abuse. Where do any of the abuse campaigns show that? Further in 2 of the 3 areas of abuse where women are higher, figures have increased! In neglect alone from 161 to 261, emotional / psych abuse from 72 to 91, physical abuse stayed the same around 70 cases,whereas the % of males abusing children has decreased in 2 of the 4 areas. Is that being made public? If we remain fixated on only sexual abuse, we will not solve the problem and children will continue to suffer abuse. Until we are honest and stop making this a gender issue by stealth we will not fix the problem. The stats,the trends and numbers speak for themselves. When are we going to be honest and expose the whole story not just a part of it. False reporting - Some report because they genuinely believe abuse is occurring, many make false allegations when the custody issues arise.
Again in that one state over 300 cases of neglect were not proven true along with over 138 cases of emotional/psych abuse, 99 cases of physical abuse and 101 cases of sexual abuse.
The kids who've been abused deserve better. Honesty is the key here and it must include the whole picture not just 25% of it.

I would contest you summation “Australians are in denial about child

sexual abuse.”

The evidence would support the theory Australians are

impotent to take a proactive stand in their personal circumstances to

face blatantly idiotic decisions by authorities concerned with child

protection

No one is in denial about Child Sexual Abuse Ms Biggs, though I doubt you have the intestinal fortitude to respond to comments on your article. I read in yesterdays Telegraph http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26100258-5007146,00.html

Six year old Naomi, who drew the picture, left, is among the *one-in-five* Australian children who have been molested.

Would Ms Biggs care to explain the *one in five* figure? Did Tracey Spicer just make it up? Its farcicle claims that 20% of our children are being sexually abused (or am I in denial) that damage the chances of those who are being abused from seeking justice, just as false accusations in the Family Law Court do. Then we have useless authorities not taking action when necessary as in the case Ms Biggs talks of. Inefective punishments cannot help either!

Ms Biggs seems to me to be the only one in denial here about who her own perpetrators were, who placed you in the position to be abused Ms Biggs.

Excert from Barbara Biggs' book "In Moral Danger" for some insight into how the author views all men, it is pure misandry. Yet those who placed her in a position to be abused were women.

I'm still staring guys back but I cant help buying into what I know is in their heads about me, I'm trying to assert myself on behalf of women but when I see the look in their eyes the whole thing f*#*s with my head, the more I have to look away, the worst I feel. Then I start noticing how guys sit on the bus, with their legs wide apart like they own the place when we women are all squished up, being polite, making room for other passengers, the more I hate guys for taking up so much space in the world, the more i hate myself for being such a worm about not meeting their eyes in the street.

the more I hate guys for taking up so much space in the world..
does this include or exclude your son Ms Biggs..

now everyone go and read Genesis 19

Australians are far from "in denial" about child sexual abuse, although I'm sure the current state of only mild moral panic is far from sufficiently hysterical for Barbara, since she derives an income from selling books and other material relating to the subject.

Like so many, her main motivation seems to be her own financial outcome.
"and did we tell you the name of the game, grrrl?"
"we call it riding the gravy train"

The 'National Council for Children Post-Separation' who provided the anecdotes used in this story is the facade of none other than our dear Aussie folklorist Barbara Biggs.

Clearly the reporter Tracey Spicer does not value her own credibility or future (people do check the sources, ynow).

Fortunately McClelland and co. can see right through such stories, as they actually have the real facts of cases at thier disposal.When they check Barbara's anecdotes with court facts it no-doubt strengthens their resolve NOT to go along with the father-hating Barbaras of the world. Lets not forget that Barbara's mum, as a prostitute, had different children to different fathers and these men naturally werent representative of all fathers as Barbara would have us believe.

Is it possible that mummy is making exaggerated allegations to get more custody? Or that Barbara is trying to push her anti-dad campaign by telling whoppers? To suggest that authorities are turning a blind eye to proven pedophilia is a monumental joke played on all the readers

Here is an article for your enjoyment. Notice that these are the only published Aussie facts ever given by the government regarding proven perpetration rates of BIOLOGICAL mums and dads:

Mums Lead Abuse Shame
http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/news/pg/news/view/733/index.php&filter=&keep_session=537877331

PaulG
I posted the same link on another thread I would say that you will get the same response here.
I am bailing out of the child abuse arena as talk does nothing
I have the paperwork that if brought against the Directors-General would find them guilty of criminal offences. Also Motorcyclemessiah on another thread says that he has equally as damaging evidence then lets get these DG's prosecuted then the next lot that come along may just think about taking a little more hands on(excuse the pun) approach
Doesn't matter what underling signs the paperwork the Director-General is the one guilty of the crimes as the Director-General gives their name to the document
Anyway child abuse is now some one elses problem I bail out talk does nothing so I don't know what the rest of youse are going to do about it but I have done my part more than some to stop it as far back to between 72-84.
Thanks have a great life from Dave

Barbara Biggs has become very adept at twisting and distorting facts to suit her own agendas. I think all would agree that males outnumber females in the area of child sexual abuse, yet biological fathers are actually less likely to sexually abuse their own children than step fathers or other male family members.Ms Biggs is very good at taking one or two high profile cases and using them to demonise ALL fathers and men in general.She is currently leading a campaign called the safer family law campaign which is seeking to roll back the shared parenting laws introduced by the previous government. In this campaign she is doing exactly the same as she has done here, she has published as part of the propaganda in her campaign ONLY children killed by their biological fathers and has completely ignored the significantly higher numbers of children killed by their biological mothers. In most instances children are actually safer in a shared parenting arrangement as there are then 2 parents to keep an eye to the welfare of the child and this is just as important in the case of a mother being able to see signs of, for example,sexual abuse being carried out while in the fathers care as it is in the case of a father being able to see signs of abuse or neglect being carried out while in the care of the mother. Given that people like DOCS or Families SA more often than not will leave the child with an abusive and neglecting mother rather than with a father who may be a better parent [and sometimes vice versa although mothers get custody in 85% of cases ] shared parenting is often the only protection that these abused children have.

"Peer-reviewed global research indicates that the greatest sexual danger to children, intra-familial abuse (including close family friends), accounts for 90 per cent of cases."

Yes, Barbara, that is correct, but information gained by FOI shows that the NATURAL FATHER is the 'family' member least likely to abuse or neglect his child.

Clearly the MOST DANGEROUS situation for a child to be in is either living with a single parent, or living with "Mum-and-mummies-new-boyfriend". A child's risk of abuse increases 26 times if they miss out on having BOTH of their NATUAL PARENTS in their family.

Which makes sense in both a positive and a negative way.

Cunning pedophiles realise that being a school-teacher or scout master is not a way to get access to emotionally vulnerable children. But if you romance a single mum, you get access to her children's bedrooms, and frequently these children are vulnerable because they have a yearning for their father, which you can exploit.

On a positive level, If a child has BOTH natural parents in their life, together they provide a 'fail-safe'. If a struggling single parent can't manage, the other parent is likely to see, or be told by the at-risk child.

Citations available
PartTimeParent@POBox.com

Answer me this:
1. What gender is “mummy’s new boyfriend”?
2. What gender is daddy?
3. Is Daddy the new boyfriend with another mummy?
4. Are “Daddy’s” and “Males” two separate genders?
5. Is Daddy’s new girlfriend going to defend the children?
6. Is Mummy’s new boyfriend going to defend the children?
7. Which gender is more likely to defend the children against the other gender?
8. Is new girlfriend or new boyfriend going to just leave instead of reporting?
9. Is your agenda harming more children?
10. Are you so damaged that you cannot do the right thing?

TPP, all mothers are women, not all women are mothers and ditto for men and fathers.

Fathers are, in general, a protective factor against abuse of their children, not perpetrators of that abuse. Once a mother becomes single, her new boyfriends (yes, male, but no, not the father) are the biggest risk the child faces. Even so, that risk is very small.

The dishonesty in the way Biggs presents the case and in what your last post tried to do is that you try to avoid making the distinction.

When analysing the safety of a situation, you have to work out two things: the HAZARD that is presented (in this case, abuse of a child)and the RISK of that hazard occurring. When preparing plans to avoid the hazard, the potential for creating other hazards and greater risks must be considered. It is my view, which I believe is well-supported by the evidence, that the risk of child abuse associated with single-mother households when the father is not closely linked is very high and that for hazards other than sexual assault the risk is vastly higher.

We all know it: the best way for kids to be protected is to have both their parents around and to have a good, close relationship with both of them. That way, even if someone associated with one parent turns out to be an arsehole and that parent doesn't want to know, the other parent is available to be told and do something about it.

Just possibly, that would reduce the number of kids you see.

Anti, Mothers and Fathers are, in general, a protective factor against abuse of their children, not perpetrators of that abuse.

This distinction you talk about makes no sense to me with father vs male. But you make no distinction between mother vs female. And I have read that a step-mother causes little harm but you put that down to the protection of the father?

For me if a child is hurt by the mother, father, boyfriend, girlfriend, aunt or uncle I blame that individual. If mum or dad or anyone stood by doing nothing it is usually a case of a group of damaged people blinded by their own experiences and where they are in this life.

I actually thought pedophilia was a more sneaky offense and not done in the open where the child’s mother can see. And I thought part of this type of abuse was making sure the child did not tell anyone including their mother.

I wish the number of kids I see was reduced Anti…

Every damaged child is evidence of a failure at all levels of government and society within this country.

As I see time and time again people with past grievances are trapped and entrenched. I see it in myself, the hurt I have seen has lead me to a different conclusion and I blame men and women, mothers and fathers, the bad amongst both genders and the good that do nothing.

TPP:"Every damaged child is evidence of a failure at all levels of government and society within this country."

What utter rubbish. How can outsiders, if they have no concrete evidence of there being anything wrong, be responsible for what goes on inside the family home? Put CCTV in all homes and have the lesbians at the local DVCS monitor? Take the mother's word in all cases? I am sure that's what Barbara Biggs & co would be very keen to see the Family Court do.

ROSCOP.I'm with you in as far as what you say about Barbara Bigot and her cronies being keen to see the mothers word being taken by the family court in all cases. However what TPP says," every damaged child is evidence of a failure at all levels of government and society within this country " is largely true.
In my own case it was the mother/female who abused and neglected my daughter, it was the family court judges/male who forced her to stay there for 3 years, it was the man hating social worker/female who refused to listen to the allegations of abuse and neglect, and it was the police/male who just drove off and left my daughter alone. All these people together conspired to leave my daughter in the parlous state she was when i was eventually given custody. They were all in the position of being able to do something, they knew what was going on, but they did nothing.

TPP:"But you make no distinction between mother vs female."

I'm happy to, if it makes you feel better, but it's pretty meaningless in the context. The reason for making the distinction between "father" and "male" is that males who are the biological fathers of children are much less likely to harm those particular kids (possibly all kids, I've not seen a study that examines that), but certainly their own.

On the face of it, it seems the biggest single predictive factor for child abuse is a single-mother household, especially one in which the children have little contact with their father, yet the rhetoric from the child-protection industry, including self-servers like Barbara Biggs, is that children should be "given" to their mothers as best practise.

Would you like to take a guess at how many people in the child-protection racket DON"T identify themselves as feminists?

As has so often been the case, this pernicious doctrine creates bad outcomes because it seeks to always paint women as good and men as bad. When the real world doesn't agree with that stance, "that's not Feminism's problem" as SJF said.

While striving to improve the world one finds oneself in is natural and admirable, it is stupidly dysfunctional not to look at what impact those changes will have and even more so to try to prevent others from doing so.

"Father as abuser" fits neatly into a low-brow feminist polemic, which is fine, except that the polemic became entrenched in family law, leading to some horrible miscarriages, such as the one described by eyeinthesky and my own case. In my case it was purely and simply my gender that was enough for a magistrate to say "we cannot take the chance" that the accusation I shouted at my ex may be proven. Huh?

TPP:"Every damaged child is evidence of a failure at all levels of government and society within this country."

Ros:”What utter rubbish. How can outsiders, if they have no concrete evidence of there being anything wrong, be responsible for what goes on inside the family home? Put CCTV in all homes and have the lesbians at the local DVCS monitor? Take the mother's word in all cases? I am sure that's what Barbara Biggs & co would be very keen to see the Family Court do.”

Oops…Roscop. I should learn to be clearer. I foster kids so when I am talking about damaged children I am generally talking about the children already in the system and how this failure is about government and society. But yes – CCTV in foster homes would be a start. I told DoCS to put a webcam in my playroom so they can see the kids. Mostly they find me humorous.

You are preaching to the converted about mums, I have seen what mums do and what damage is done by them doing nothing. But it is equal with the dads in my experience. Hardly gives me a warm and tingly feeling inside but in the battle of the sexes I personally can’t point at one and say they win in the child abuse sweepstake.

Thanks for the explanation Anti. But you are doing the same thing – trying to portray mothers as bad instead of fathers. If this picking sides has not worked for the children then another approach is needed? I am at a loss to understand how your magistrates and courts operate. I’m guessing they read studies etc and the comment about “not taking a chance” was about the stats they look at?

And I thought court would be about both sides presenting their case and a judge considering the individuals in front of them on their own merits. Probably terribly naive of me aye.

Given what goes on in these threads the Wiki definition didn’t make it clear what feminist means in this country.

TPP. And i thought court would be about both sides presenting their case and a judge considering the individuals in front of them on their own merits.
If only that were true. In my own case the ex had no one who would give her a character reference, she was proven to have mental and alcohol abuse problems, and had been proven many times to be abusing and neglecting our daughter in clear breach of the law and the family court orders placed on her, and in 3 years she didn't turn up to a single court hearing.I had a mountain of evidence of abuse and neglect from individuals, police reports and even Families SA crisis care workers who had to get the police to remove the drunken ex from the hotel. I also had several character references including from one woman who is a JP, sherriffs officer and former acting magistrate. I also never missed a single court hearing in 3 years, and have no criminal record. Please be honest, who would you award custody of the child to. Yet for 3 years they did nothing and it was eventually left to my daughter to SHAME them into doing something. The real cause of it was the man hating social worker on my case, who because of a bad relationship uses her position to make ALL men suffer for it, in my case very much at the expense of my daughters welfare. Her behaviour was well known both in her own office and in the wider community. Luckily eventually i was able to get the human services minister to have her removed from my case otherwise who knows where my daughter would be now.
Without being disrespectful, if you believe judges make decisions on merit, then you are indeed terribly naive. I was discriminated against solely because i was a male/father, and my daughters life was almost destroyed because of it.

TPP:"you are doing the same thing – trying to portray mothers as bad instead of fathers. "

Not at all. I've gone out of my way to point out that the total subset of children who are abused is quite small as a proportion of the population. It's just that they are mostly from single-mother households. That's not in any way judgemental, just factual. Some fathers abuse their kids as well, but on the whole, if dad's around, the kids are safer.

If it makes sense to address young males with advertising designed to shame in order to reduce the road toll, why does it not make sense to do the same sort of thing directed at single mothers in order to reduce abuse and neglect?

Personally, I find both concepts revolting, but "what's sauce for the goose"...

TPP:"you are doing the same thing – trying to portray mothers as bad instead of fathers. "

Anti:”Not at all. I've gone out of my way to point out that the total subset of children who are abused is quite small as a proportion of the population.”

Oh Anti that makes no sense. If so small what are you complaining about? If the men here have kids that stayed with abusive mums; so what if the numbers aren’t that big.

This feeling of out of sight out of mind. In General section you appear to support a right of freedom for parents to be behind closed doors. Whereas you also want all doors open if it’s your kid. So this is why: “Australians in denial about child sexual abuse” Topic.

I would say in general Aussie’s have no interest in opening any doors unless it affects their own wants personally. Not denial, just lack of interest. So maybe the only thing that works is letting society know what tax dollars are spent on this abuse.

“It's just that they are mostly from single-mother households. “

Well looks like judges decide in the same manner as this. Not individual cases but a blanket observation.

“If it makes sense to address young males with advertising designed to shame in order to reduce the road toll, why does it not make sense to do the same sort of thing directed at single mothers in order to reduce abuse and neglect?”

It does make sense, do it. I guess the only poster I can think of is a pregnant women drinking. Not even sure if it was in this country.

“Personally, I find both concepts revolting, but "what's sauce for the goose"...”

Pointing out that behavior is shameful can work. It only shames the ones where they recognize the truth of what they are doing. If a young man doesn’t speed he shouldn’t feel anything towards the signs. Shame is wrapped up in pride, if you want pride in yourself; do no shameful things.

Eye – you're right, and I’m trying to catch up.

Can't help feeling this thread has become tangled ...

The Author writes about SEXUAL abuse and states:

"... monstering myth continues, creating a veil around most common offenders - step-fathers (29 per cent), fathers (20 per cent), other family members mainly adolescent boys (11 per cent) and others in the family circle, up to one-third female (30 per cent).
Yes, public outrage, monstering offenders and frenzied vigilante action helps people feel better, but it further endangers children by masking the ordinary face of most child sex offenders."

This seems a pretty unbiased report, pointing out that within an interfamilial scenario about 30% of perpetrators are FEMALE.

No surprises 'step-fathers' have the highest stats. Several respondents pointed out that children in single mother households are at greatest risk of all forms of abuse and I agree. This is not stating all solo mothers/fathers or stepfathers are bad parents (or every biological couple rearing their children are good) - only that this lifestyle poses more risks to children.

Anyway this article was about diverting attention from "Paedophile Sex Monster" offenders who according to Barbara account for about 10% of child sex abuse cases, focusing back to the main source of the problem. That is behind the closed doors and often "normal" "happy" facade of suburbia at the hands of trusted family or close associates.

Sad facts: child molested by an 'outsider', the crime is far more likely to be reported, investigated and prosecuted than if the assailant is family or close associate. The greatest impediment is still 'closing ranks' against external interference. In better scenarios the offender may be 'punished' and/or victim shielded from further abuse, mostly very privately. The paedophile often merely shifts focus to fresh meat. Worse - the victim is not believed, even punished for speaking up or the 'guardian' is complicate in the abuse.

Despite open dialogue the problem continues and even worsens. How can we stop it? My only comment is victims should never be returned to any parent/carer who has committed such abuse. If that excludes Mummy cos she stands by Daddy-diddler so be it

Devine:”Despite open dialogue the problem continues and even worsens. How can we stop it? My only comment is victims should never be returned to any parent/carer who has committed such abuse. If that excludes Mummy cos she stands by Daddy-diddler so be it.”

It is the nature of the crime that makes it so hard to detect, no visible bruises or sure signs of a child neglected. Making the community more aware? I don’t even believe that is possible, I think our communities are terribly aware.

So we have awareness and the crime acknowledged. The punishment and rehabilitation are in place and could well be adequate.

The victims need a whole lot more support and if they do have to be removed from family then where they go is what I am certain the public needs to be more aware of.

But on a very practical note; maybe children could go for some kind of scan regularly? Bring back the dental nurses in all schools and add a nurse.

Antiseptic: excellent points. Made me think for a bit. But I do worry about your motives. If single mothers are the single biggest risk factor, then the obvious solution is to try to prevent them from becoming single in the first place. And that would mean ... well as I said, I worry about your motives. Bad motives or not, I tend to agree.

divine_msn: excellent summation of what Anti was saying.

The Pied Piper: "Bring back the dental nurses in all schools and add a nurse."

If you think they could spot this sort of thing, then I am all for it. But it strikes me they would only spot problems where physical damage is done. Surely (am I totally naive?) that is very rare.

The Pied Piper "And I thought court would be about both sides presenting their case and a judge considering the individuals in front of them on their own merits. Probably terribly naive of me aye."

Not realy naive Piper, rather accurate actually. You may notice Barbara Biggs quotes such a case in her article

"Even as recently as this year, despite four Melbourne child protection agencies and authorities testifying to the Family Court that a four-year-old boy had been abused by the father, a single court expert said the agencies were all wrong and the mother was coaching the child. Custody was awarded to the father and the mother now has only supervised access visits once a fortnight. A Department of Human Service protection order, which still exists, can override a Family Court order, but because of lack of resources, this power has never been invoked."

Yet Barbara fails to reference the case. All family law judgements are now published, wonder why Barbara doesn't reference.

Most likely because the judgement shows that the court got it right, and that the allegations of sexual abuse by the mother were fraudulent. I haven't been able to find such a case at http://www.familycourt.gov.au/ under new judgements however I haven't looked under appeals yet

If anyone else knows a link to this case it would be good to reveiw and see the obvious bias by Barbara Biggs in her interpretation of the outcome, considering the family (read Kangaroo) courts use the leser legal standard of "on a basis of probabilities" instead of the far more stringent legal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt".

There wasn't even a basis of probabilities that the sexual abuse occured yet Barbara feels this case is worth quoting as an anecdote?

Ross M,
I think you may be wrong with a Department of Human Services order overriding a Family Court order as the Department of Human Services is a State Department and the Family Court of Australia is Federal

If there is a decrepency between the State and the Federal then the Federal shall take prevalence over the State.
To invoke an order by a State Authority overriding the order of the Family Court could find itself in contempt of the Family Court

After the shite that hit the fan with the Wakim Case I think you would find that the Federal Family Court could take that action

It would be interesting to find out for sure

I do know that the Director-General of DoCS imposes any action against a Family Court order is warned of this point in The Child Protection Act of NSW.

But like I say it would be interesting to find out for sure

Thanks have a good life from Dave

divine_msn "Despite open dialogue the problem continues and even worsens"
Does it? Or are the alleged increasing occurences simply in line with population increases? How much truth is there in the 1 in 4 figure I quoted from a newspaper article in my first, or is it like the DV myth, being used for illustrative purposes only?

As I said originally, I doubt very much Australia is in any denial, except about gathering accurate statistics on the subject, people are asking that a known peadophile not be allowed to live in their suburb, it doesnt matter if the rock spider was diddling his kids or someone elses, or his gender, no one wants a known peadophile living next door. Is that denial, I Dont Think So! I think the author is a man hating mysandrist, and that is proven in my original. The only time the author mentions female peadophiles is in unqualified (unreferenced) statistics.

Dave aka dwg you might like to re-read my last, the piece about docs and FCA came from the original article, it was in "quotation marks" for exactly that reason, did you read it properly?

Ross M
Re-Read that, My undersatanding is that The Department of Human Services is a Victorian State Department if that is the case then its orders would be overriden by the Family Court of Australia, as the Family Court of Australia is a Federal Body.
The Constitution States that if there is a discrepency between State and Federal the Federal shall take preferrence over the State
In Victoria the Department of Human Services override the States Child Protection Agency
In NSW, DoCS are not to take action that overrides a Family Court Order as to do so could hold the Director-General in contempt of the Family Court of Australia
This is the trouble, this country had the States sign an agreement to become a Federation and at the time that was also offered to New Zealand which in the end opted out and went thier own way and the States convinced WA to join the Federation by allowing WA to have its own High Court as Perth was to far away from the east coast.
Since then the States have been arguing that they are Soveriegn States and have thier own separate rules and Victoria and NSW have been arguing about whatever and that is why Canberra was formed

This is a bit off the track in regards to Child Sexual Abuse it is time that we had a clear cut set of rules and laws ie Town-State- Federal stop the arguing in between because as we speak another Child is likely to be Abused
Thanks have a good life from Dave
Ross M If your interested in a case that is mind boggling then contact me graysond49@yahoo.com I will give you one

Barbara Biggs should be made aware that males do not have a monopoly on perpetrating evil acts on children. Maybe Biggs could write an online opinion piece titled "British in denial about child sexual abuse" and put it on a UK website. Ms Biggs is good at basing her articles on one or two examples out of a large population, that pop up in the press every now and then, so I suggest she could base an article on this story:

"Nursery pedophile 'pure evil': husband"

"A UK man whose nursery worker wife pleaded guilty to pedophilia charges has referred to her in a British tabloid newspaper as being "cold, calculating scum".

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/871256/nursery-pedophile-pure-evil-husband

I wonder who would be the more evil, Kathleen Folbigg or Vanessa George.

Good point Roscop. Perhaps you could post the story on the safer family law campaign site run by Barbara Bigot and her cronies. Wonder how long it would last. They have only examples of children killed by their mothers on their "in memoriam" When i posted examples of children killed by their mothers on there they lasted less than 1 day before they were deleted. And certain posters on olo have the nerve to suggest that it is the men who are causing this so called gender war.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2008/54.html
Strathfield and English (2008)FamCA 54 (30 January 2008) appears to be the case referenced by Barbara Biggs. Can anyone confirm this?

On reading the decision above, my opinion is the judge made a correct decision.

DWG, I'm not 100% sure on state v federal but I think you're correct, what I was saying was you were blaming me as though it was my comment when all I did was quote the article.

Ross M,
That seems like the case like you though I could be wrong

This whole Law thing is damn stupid we are the only democratic country in the world where the capital of the country has a different set of Laws to the rest of the country

The only way to sort all this out is to start to recognizing SAHM's get the emphasis on the child and get parents involved in the childs life and away from the idea that the parents have a life

Parents don't have a life as such they have a responsibility

Singles and childless couples are undermining the family unit by placing emphasis on having a good time and what parents are missing out on

There is no greater role in Society, to be engaged, than to be a responsible parent

If you bring a child into this world or take a child on in this world you give up 18 years of your life automatically then you give up the rest of your life in worry whether you did right or wrong

Society governments feminists we can blame a lot of different sectors but in the end it is the parents and the non-recognition of the importance of raising kids

Thanks All have a good life from Dave

Ross M & DWG,

I can’t see how Strathfield and English could be the case unless something has happened since the judgement (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2008/54.html) was made. Yes, the age of the child and a protection order seems to fit with that case but Biggs says in her article the mother now only has supervised access visits once a fortnight whereas in the judgement orders are made giving under a detailed schedule, the mother custody and the father access.

Nevertheless Strathfield and English is a very interesting case so thankyou for posting the link to it. Anyone who has any interest in child sexual abuse allegations should have a good read of the judgement. It is quite damning of the mother AND her partner in an excessively polite way. The testimonies given by the lesbians against the father weren’t worth a pinch of crap. The likes of Biggs want child protection authorities to rely on such rubbish to drive a solid wedge into the relationship a child has with its accused father.