Pericles
My point there would be people who would be able to identify the family.

As I said it is relatively easy to put false memories into a child's mind.

I also said we are judging the case from a biased source. We don't know all the facts.

If there is evidence that the father's intentions are inappropriate then the visits should be supervised (full stop).

But as I've said getting a rope for a lynching is premature and reactionary.

The issue that is fair to discuss is should a child be forced to go a parents home if they have expressed wishes not to?
The same conditioning could apply?

Foxy: "However, I am totally amazed by the Judge's decision."

That comment prompted me to look at the newspaper article.

I see the father is a registered sex offender. But not for having sex with children, but rather for looking at pictures. They don't say what pictures, and recall we register people who own inappropriate Simpons cartoons as sex offenders.

I know mine isn't the PC viewpoint, but banning him for seeing his kids because of that seems as reasonable as banning him from driving his kids to school because he has street car racing magazines. It tells you very little about the way he conducts himself towards his own children. Let me put it another way. Your husband liked porn? Of course he did; he is male. So he treated you like a porn star, and wanted you to behave like one? Of course he didn't. Most males don't want their wives to behave like porn stars. And believe it or not, most males don't want to have sex with their kids, even if they do own Simpson's cartoons portraying it.

The second thing was more worrying. It said "found the father had invited one of the girls into his bed, and had demonstrated affection ... inappropriate for a child of that age." If they had managed to prove the father was a paedophile he would be in jail for that now. But he isn't. So the possibilities range from him being a raging paedophile to a man being persecuted by a vindictive wife.

If he was anything but the biological father, you would simply say "tough" and ban him from seeing the kids. But he is the biological father, and if the wife is the unstable one the kids may well be better off if they maintain their relationship with him.

My guess is this position of not knowing the facts yet being forced to make a decision is the impossible position the judge found himself/herself in. And from that vantage point it looks to me like the judgement was a fair attempt at a compromise.

Here again is the link to the court details which includes references to many reports submitted for consideration:

http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/resources/file/ebfeb74aa88d192/2010_FamCA_35.pdf

There isn't much point in arguing the merits of the reporting without looking at the court file.

The father had already been directed that he wasn't to take the children into his bed - but he repeated the behaviour.

One of his daughters had already detailed that she'd been in his bed and he had been badgering her.

His wife had already reported seeing him kneeling by one of the girls; she with bottom uncovered and he with his genitals in view.

These things had already been recorded and some of them investigated.

He wasn't just looking at porn but had recorded some of it on video, which is an additional offence. He excused his behaviour by saying that he gets anxious and when he uses pot he can't control his impulses (or words to that effect).

As I said, I'm only surprised at the naivety of the court in thinking that abuse only happens at night. It happens whenever an abuser can arrange access to the child and isn't usually always just a sex act, but a culmination of behaviours - leering, denying personal privacy (like walking in to watch while someone showers), sexual innuendo, intimidation and so on.

I am not saying the girls shouldn't be able to see their father (if they want to) but it should be supervised - no exceptions.

rstuart and Pericles
I can see your points regarding privacy in that even reference to certain facts may reveal some aspects that would have otherwise remained confidential. It is not the first time a journlist has ignored this in pursuit of a storyline. However without knowing the facts of the case or whether Anti has spun only one version of the facts I cannot comment. Perhaps the child was told the facts of the case would be recorded and the whole thing is a beat up after the event. Secondly if you told me something in confidence I would not reveal it.

However we have to part ways rstuart with the idea that those who actively view child porn are suitable to be around children let alone have shared custody. Unfortunately your view is very much PC if OLO is any indication.

Your assertion that if the father was a pedophile he would be in jail is naive. Do we assert that all thieves, rapists and drug dealers see the inside of a prison? For years we have seen rapists escape punishment such as the Indigenous case in QLD which saw a young child returned to the same community in which lived her rapists. The rapists were not convicted despite no dispute over the actual rape by the Judge. This does not mean they now suitable to be around children.

If any child does not want to visit with either their father or mother that wish should be honoured. When did we start coercing children to spend time with someone they were scared of just to appease some skewed notion of the rights of a parent.

Thanks for the responses, folks.

I would rather this didn't devolve further into a discussion of the judge's decision; he had a large amount of information to go on and much of it is ambiguous if his stated reasons for judgement are anything to go by. Suffice to say that as a "Registered Sex Offender" his offences are at the lower end of the scale and did not involve the girls or any physical action against anybody. The reason it was inappropriate for the girls to share his bed was that he had been ordered not to, based on the precautionary principle, not becausethere was any evidence presented that the girls had been sexually abused, apart from the mother's, who the Judge described as "unreliable".

It sounds as though both parents have been to some extent victims of their own personalities and the interaction between them, rather than especially nasty people. Much of the father's behaviour seems based on a wish not to be "controlled" by the mother's demands via the Court and much of her behaviour seems to be designed to bolster a claim to victimhood and hence, preferential treatment. Nothing to see there - it's standard Family Law fare.

That brings us back to the abuse of trust of this little girl. I'm prepared to acknowledge, as I did in my OP, that Overington was reporting from the judgement, which does ameliorate her offence somewhat, but as has been pointed out, it doesn't let her off the hook. I'll get back to her in a moment.

The psychologists who interviewed the girl had a reason to disclose her request. They were acting as agents of the Court, not as representatives of any party to the case- an important distinction. Their evidence had to be as complete as possible to fulfil their role. The ICL similarly had an obligation to ensure their expressed wish was heard and the Court had an obligation to hear the facts. All of those obligations were discharged within the Court.

[cont]

Overington's reporting had no such basis. It was prurient and designed to titillate and inflame, not enlighten. Yes, report the facts of such cases - there's a genuine public interest in publicising the judgements of the Court. There is no public interest in selectively reporting the Judge's reasons for judgement to highlight the distress of this little girl when being interviewed. It distracts from a dispassionate analysis, which, of course, is Overington's intent.

Ash Patil of Fathers 4 Equality has documented a list of emails he and others, including Tony Miller of Dads in Distress, have sent Overington on the subject of research into child abuse. She routinely deletes such emails unopened according to Patil http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/news/pg/news/view/771/index.php&filter=21. Fathers 4 Equality is not a radical or violent organisation and does not advocate for anything other than shared care.

Overington has a history of misusing her position as a journalist. In 2007 she threatened a political candidate with adverse press if he didn't allow her an interview http://www.smh.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/emails-explore-reporters-own-preferences-then-turn-nasty/2007/11/13/1194766675346.html. In that exchange, she reveals that she has been separated from her husband for 5 months. Her strident attacks on the shared-parenting laws stem from that time.

It seems likely she became aware that she might have to share her child with its father and decided to use her platform in the Australian to become an advocate against the Howard Govt Family Law changes. She has since written a novel on the subject of child abuse, which she is keen to promote.

I also commend the ABC's media watch report on Overington's efforts during that period. As a Walkley-award winning journalist she looks a lot more comfortable in the gutter.

As always, I have questions. In the age of New Media, is Overington's lackadaisical approach to balanced journalism the new paradigm? Am I being unreasonable in expecting a journal of record to demand a high standard of professional integrity from its staff? Is it necessary for journalists to disclose their own interests when writing op-ed pieces? Does the end justify the means, such that a child's distress is fair game to make a point?