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?