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.