In the Australian today there is an article by Caroline Overington.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/girls-ordered-to-visit-sex-offender-dad/story-e6frg6nf-1225840648724

As is normally the case with stuff by Overington, it's all about a supposed failure of the Family Court. As an activist for a presumption of maternal primacy in custody matters this is her stock-in-trade. In this case, it seems the girls were ordered to spend time with their father, who has a conviction for possessing child porn. A case just made for Overington and her faux moral outrage.

I don't want to discuss that case, here, there's no point. I'm interested in the last line of Overington's piece.

It says:"The eldest girl told counsellors she "did not want to spend time alone with her father" and kept repeating: `Please don't tell dad.""

I'm quite frankly appalled at Overington and the Australian for publishing that, if true. What purpose can be served by such flagrant flaunting of this child's earnestly expressed request for privacy?

In her zeal to present her activist claim against the Family court, I believe Overington has abused this child. She cannot sit back and claim a public right to know - this was a private request from a 10 year old girl in distress which she has publicised entirely for her own ends.

At best, it's trash journalism and Overington should be severely censured by the Australian.

I'm also puzzled as to why the Court would not also respect her expressed desire for privacy, since Overington presumably took the information from Court documents. Can anyone see any possible reason for that?

No wonder Antiseptic doesn't want to discuss the actual case that is the context of the final paragraph of Overington's report. If the report is accurate, the kids are afraid to stay overnight with their father, who has previously invited one of the girls into his bed and displayed "affection" that the Family Court found to be "in a way that was, in all the circumstances, inappropriate for a child of that age".

The child's privacy hasn't been breached, because the report quite correctly does not identify any of those involved, including the father. The only "abuse" of any child that I can see in this report has been perpetrated by the father. It seems to me that the kids have every reason to want to avoid being alone with the creep.

One positive effect of including the anonymous child's words in the report might be if her father read them and took notice of his daughter's fear of him that he's caused by his own actions.

I suggest others click on the link provided and judge for themselves.

I know you're being deliberately provocative here, Anti - but you really are grasping at straws this time, in your interminable campaign against women and children.

Journalistic integrity is a bit like military intelligence. It's a concept, but the reality ... well ...

I'm with StG
Journalistic integrity is an oxymoron in terms.

These columnists/journalists are there to increase readership to help sell advertising.

As for SO morals re the repeating what the 10 yo said is beyond the pale but par for these for sale moral guardians.

CJ
On the surface it looks sus but how much did mum etc put the idea into her head. Implanting new memories isn't that hard on young children.
Anyway we have a court system for a reason.
Personally before I get my rope out of the shed, I would like a lot more information.

@CJ Morgan: The child's privacy hasn't been breached, because the report quite correctly does not identify any of those involved, including the father.

Quite true. And irrelevant, as you must know. The child's request was "Please don't tell dad". Clearly dad has now been told in a very public way.

There may be argument's against Antiseptic's point. But that assuredly isn't one of them. If you want one, try showing that Dad already knew. It seems possible.

If the child's name and family were not mentioned how is it a breach of privacy? There are many cases of child abuse and this story could pertain to, sadly, a large number of them.

If the journalist named the family of course it is a breach of privacy especially given the child's concerns about "telling dad".

However despite Anti's primary concern about privacy, does anyone else feel a bit sickened by the fact that the father is allowed visits as long as he puts "locks on the bedroom doors". What sort of society are we becoming that recognises there is a problem and then says it's okay that dad is a pervert as long as the girls can lock the doors. Ludicrous.

While I have some empathy with men's lobby groups trying to achieve some equity in child custody or access to their children it is self defeating if there is an assumption that all children are lying and all mothers are planting the seed.

Surely we can do better than that in the interests of equality and get the fairest outcomes overall with child welfare holding priority over the interests of either parent.