Child protection trumps rights of divorced parents

Tim says:

11:38am | 12/02/10

Happy,
If this is the case then surely the issue should be with the judiciary and not with the 50-50 parenting laws.
If cases have obvious and clear evidence of abuse by one parent then the judiciary should obviously remove the rights of that parent.
I can’t believe the family court judges would be that stupid.

Tim says:

09:30am | 12/02/10

Happy,
this goes to the very core of our legal system.
The presumption of innocence is one of the most important legal principles we have.
I’m not saying that there are not improvements that could be made, whether that be giving the family court extra resources to investigate individual cases or helping the police to investigate quicker and more thoroughly but the idea that we should punish someone on an accusation, I find to be a ridiculous proposition.
And you should know that providing links to individual extreme cases as proof that the laws should be changed is stupid.
Hard cases make for bad law.

Chris says:

06:27pm | 11/02/10

I don’t think anyone has said (from either male of female posters) that it is only women or only men abusing children - I think posters of both genders acknowlege that both genders have child abusers. I also saw no posts in which anyone said an abuser should have ANY custodial rights to a child, posters are simply debating current custodial law (rationally and sometimes irrationally).

I’m also quite sure the current shared parenting laws have provision to remove access to any abusive parent so how does changing them affect abuse cases?

Curious as to why you felt you needed to qualify that you are male? I havn’t met many ladies called Brett recently.

Eric says:

05:17pm | 11/02/10

Michael, you fail to consider that maybe the mothers are demanding 100% custody so they can grab the father’s money.

Chris says:

01:46pm | 11/02/10

I’d also like to see these studies.

I don’t know if my routine is typical but amoungst my friends it seems to be - it consists of: get up get ready for work pepare bottle leave with other half before going to work….long period of soul sapping work…..get home spend an hour with my son (would be more but he then goes to bed - and deprivating him of sleep for my pleasure would be a form of abuse) rinse wash and repeat until weekend when I try and spend most of the weekend with him aside from doing various household chores.

Would love to split parenting duties daily on a 50/50 basis however reality is that my partner can’t earn anywhere near my income and this would be impractical (that is if I was able to get a 3 day working week or the like in the first place).

Michael Greene says:

01:13pm | 11/02/10

Tim - “...have you thought that simply due to the fact that father’s work considerable longer hours than mothers, they would have less time with their children?”. Precisely!. So why are fathers wanting children for large amounts of their children’s time after separation, when they can give so little time to their care?. That is if they really care.  The children are more likely to be spending time with babysitters and other adults who are not their parents or wandering the streets. Is that fair to children?.

Tim says:

12:35pm | 11/02/10

What studies? Links please.
And have you thought that simply due to the fact that father’s work considerable longer hours than mothers, they would have less time with their children?
Oh and I have no problem with the CSA seeking out deadbeat dads, I don’t want my tax dollars paying for anybody’s children.

Tim says:

09:12am | 11/02/10

Helen,
so now your argument is that a child’s life should not be disrupted during divorce and separation by having to see both parents on an equal basis?
So would you be OK with a law that initially gave 100% custody to father’s during a seperation? I mean this would reduce the disruptive effect you talk about.
Ah, but that would be silly wouldn’t it?
Face it, the 50-50 law is the only fair and correct starting point for custody. For children and parents.

MarK says:

04:51pm | 10/02/10

I am suprised Tracy did use this
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/mum-gassed-kids-over-christmas-day-dispute/story-e6frfku9-1225828779243
as another reason why Men shouldnt get access to their kids,
In the interest of child protection keeping kids from their fathers will reduce the number of murderous vengeful mothers who kill their own children, just to get back at the father

Eric says:

05:13pm | 10/02/10

So, mog, you yourself admit that the majority of allegations are unsubstantiated by evidence. Clearly there is a huge problem with women making false allegations against men, and I have yet to hear of a woman being penalised for such behaviour.

But it’s not only men who are scarred by lies. Consider the children, who are brainwashed into believing that they were sexually abused even if they can’t remember it. What effect does this trauma have on the mind of an innocent child? It’s probably as bad as actually being abused.

There need to be tough penalties for false accusations. The penalties for false accusations of a crime should be equal to those for the actual crime.

mog says:

03:09pm | 10/02/10

Eric the research says you are wrong. Not that you will be bothered by that. Most allegations are ‘unsubstantiated’ which means there is not the evidence to definitively support the claim. It does not mean the allegation was false. Most incestuous child sex allegations are never investigated. If they are investigated the child does not always make clear statements. When young children do make clear statements they are not acceptable witness evidence so there will be no police charges unless there are admissions from the accused.  Convicted child sex offender parents are still being awarded time with their children in the family law system.  Accusing a man of child sex abuse does not normally result in anything much beyond brief questioning by police. Once he denies it, the focus shifts to blaming the accuser.  Eric you imagine that a man’s life would be ruined but it won’t be because the system is set up to protect him all the way. Your fantasy that women are emotionally and financially rewarded by making false accusations is a self-serving victim fantasy.  They will be villified by the family law system as an alienating parent and they will face fines, jail and reversal of custody if they resist handing their child over for sex abuse. I have never met a mother who got rich and happy by making false child sex abuse allegations.

Tim says:

02:58pm | 10/02/10

Your joking right 6c legs?
if a child acts funny around an accused person they should not be able to see them? 
Maybe instead of this, as soon as an allegation is made the children are placed into state care until the allegations are investigated thoroughly?
Oh, and the majority of whinging i’ve seen on this thread is from people like yourself who wish to throw our legal system and the presumption of innocence out the window because of an extreme minority of cases.
Can you not see the problems you cause if an allegation is all it takes for someone to be punished?

6clegs says:

02:13pm | 10/02/10

No, “Tim” - watch the children, and the way they interact with the accused.
But that brings up other issues of psychologically abusing a child of ‘‘making them be ‘‘alone’’ with the accused.’‘

All the whinging on this thread from bleating MRA members continually placing money/themselves above Childrens Rights ( & an alleged abused child no less) shows them for what they are,  selfish, bitter and twisted spoilt brats that aren’t getting their own way -  aw de poor diddums

Tim says:

12:33pm | 10/02/10

Yes that’s all well and good but what do we do about it?
In cases where there is a sexual abuse allegation do we just throw our presumption of innocence out of the window?

Tim says:

09:31am | 10/02/10

Sorry Helen,
that is wrong. The study actually found that DV was the major health factor in death, disability and ill-health for women 15-44.
This included factors like depression, anxiety, suicides, drug use, alcohol and tobacco.
Actual injuries and deaths consisted of less than 3% of the total health burden that was attributed to DV. Read from that what you will.

Steve of Cornubia says:

04:54pm | 10/02/10

Hi, I’m the ‘doofus’ who can’t possibly know who is or isn’t abusing children. But somehow you and your imaginary friends can? That’s so cool!

Is it the drugs, or were you born with amazing mind-reading powers?

I would up your dose today. The world seems to be bothering you even more than usual.

Eric says:

08:15am | 10/02/10

Are you the same “Helen” who earlier claimed that domestic violence was the number one killer of women in Australia? If so, why should we believe anything you say?

Eric says:

07:39am | 10/02/10

Get some facts inta ya, Jack.

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

SUMMARY:  This bibliography examines 271 scholarly investigations: 211 empirical studies and 60 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.  The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 365,000.

Jack Thomas says:

09:17pm | 09/02/10

That’s right Eric, damn stupid women pushing their face into a bloke’s fist ey? Same with those damn kids, it’s their fault for being abused by the old man…

Just take your bitter and twisted women hating drivel elsewhere Eric. Preferably back to therapy.

Eric says:

06:33pm | 09/02/10

And half of that domestic violence is perpetrated by women.

DG says:

05:21pm | 09/02/10

I think that’s really the point.

There is no proof that anything is going on - the mother gets her say and the father is given no chance to defend himself. The Dr’s obligation as a mandatory reporter resulted in what?

Isn’t it equally possible, from the above allegations, that the mother assaulted the daughter and blamed the father? If not, why not? All that is required, apparently, is the allegation. 

As for any change of a fair hearing -

You’ve proven it yourself:
“What can be done to stop this little girls pain and abuse, that is the issue” - you have already agreed that the abuse is happening. You have already convicted the father. You are happy throwing away the father’s right to a trial, right to to face his accuser, to defend himself and the right to be acquitted. Are you really comfortable convicting someone of such a serious offence on nothing more than the mothers say-so?

Eric says:

04:44pm | 09/02/10

Do you really believe that story? A child being raped for four years, there is medical evidence, but the police have done nothing?

This is not a credible story.

Chris says:

04:10pm | 09/02/10

I still don’t see how 50/50 parenting laws put people at risk? It sounds perfectly fair to me - so long as allegations of abuse etc are taken seriously and the child’s welfare ensured while allegations are investigated.

Agree on the case with the mother If i knew someone was raping my son I would probably do whatever was necesary to stop it and face whatever consequences came of whatever actions I took.

Also since I have now posted several times to this article I will illustrate my situation so that people can look at my posts and know where I’m coming from. I am in a happy relationship with my partner and we have 1 child so I have no immediate personal vested interest in the subject however I do fear that should my relationship breakdown I will not have as much access to my son as I’d like - as I have seen with other parents in my social circle and at work etc. The previous system to be honest I thought was blatently unfair and probably kept men in sad failing relationships just to be with their children (growing up watching a failed relationship limp on can’t be good for children however in my opinion).

My considerably more than 2 cents worth - sorry for long and numourous posts.

Bob says:

03:53pm | 09/02/10

Suze in the eyes of people like you and most other bitter Australian females there are no good men or fathers.  Self serving men’s rights groups? Don’t make me laugh. They’re nothing compared to the feral hatred of men by women’s groups of which your honorary membership is guaranteed. Chauvanist law? You have got to be kidding. The law unashamedly favours women in all aspects, to the extent feral females see nothing but their own conceited space. Women have a get out of jail card issued at birth. I respond with the same reciprocal vitriole that you have demonstrated, over which women seem to have sole domain through social indoctrination.

James says:

03:33pm | 09/02/10

But if they have their heads in their behinds, wouldn’t that give then a perfect angle from which to view the things that they are full of?  I would say, if they want to see what they are full of, instead of removing their heads from their behinds they should keep them there and get a torch or something…

MK says:

04:02pm | 10/02/10

Great Title, cant argue that
Of course child protection should come first

Did you happen to read the article that comes after the title?
that is where the people have the issue,
In Fact it was a full pre-emptive salvo by Tracy,
it wasnt the commenters who turned this into Gender wars

DG says:

03:04pm | 09/02/10

I agree that this should not be a gender war - but the suggestion that an allegation of criminal activity should be considered in a family court is ludicrous at best. We have police and criminal courts for these things.

I agree that we are dealing with a small number of cases where one person is abusive - but the point is it’s time to stand up and make a decision. “Victims” need to decide either make the formal allegation or sit down and shut up. I say “Victims” because if the person doesn’t make a complaint what evidence is there that they are the victim of anything more than believing their own lies?

How does acting on unsupported allegations help the child? It simply helps the person who is willing to make such an unsupported allegation. It’s not perfect but this is the basis of “innocent until proven guilty”.

Ray says:

02:23pm | 09/02/10

Stop the gender war Carolyn?.  Women were and are the architects of such war in which men have been censored. But I get the feeling most men have had a gutful. Can’t cop men standing up for their case! The change is for ther better rather than bland subjegation to feminist ideals to which we have been ransomed for decades,

James says:

02:25pm | 09/02/10

Thanks Ben.  The prize for sanest comment of the thread should go to you for this one.

Chris says:

01:57pm | 09/02/10

Sadly a majority of seperating males probably accept their “fate” rather than fight a biased formerly biased system that may have resulted in them having less access.

Davido says:

12:32am | 10/02/10

What a joke your quasi-statistical ill informed comment is.

Here is just one example of a false sexual abuse allegation: Wesley & Hunt [2009] FamCA 1158

And another: Sonner & Butin [2009] FamCA 1306

There are heaps. Check em out. Or are you scared to find out the truth?

Tim says:

12:39pm | 09/02/10

Yes,
there’s the truth and then there are biased studies from self interested groups and researchers.
I could just as easily provide links from reports commissioned by MRA’s that show the opposite.
How many reported cases of abuse are found to be unsubstantiated?

Tim says:

12:13pm | 09/02/10

How?
If someone wrote an article about whinging feminists and you complained would it be proving the point of the article?

James says:

11:28am | 09/02/10

Do you live in Frankston?  My local shopping centre is nothing like that.

Wendy says:

12:32pm | 09/02/10

Ray, you are eminently correct. The female social groups from which I now distance myself have a single minded agenda to trash talk males, husbands/partners and develop pathways to maximise their self interest outcomes, through deceit and misrepresentation with which they have been successful. I find men have far more integrity.

Happy says:

10:37am | 11/02/10

Ray, you have no evidence to back up your assertions. The evidence actually is against your comments. Let me deal with these:
1.  “Firstly, statistics show mothers abuse their children more than fathers,”- This is a direct quote from the researchers of a major study misused by ‘fathers rights’ campaigners…
“So, it is the case that physical abuse by parents/carers is far more common than sexual abuse perpetrated by parents/carers. However, our study never claimed or attempted to prove that ‘mothers are a greater danger to children’.  In considering these findings about physical treatment at the hands of mothers and fathers we would make the following points:
o   Despite the proportion of mothers involved in violent treatment, a fifth (20%) of the sample were ‘sometimes really afraid’ of their fathers. In comparison, only 7% of the sample were ‘sometimes really afraid’ of their mothers (Cawson, 2002, p. 27)  According to our study: ‘These are interesting results, as it seems surprising that fear of fathers should be more common when mothers and fathers were both implicated in physical and emotional maltreatment, with figures for mothers’ involvement [in physical maltreatment] slightly higher than for fathers. Nobes et al (1999) suggest that fathers are slightly more likely than mothers to inflict severe punishment. One possible explanation for the greater fear of fathers, could be that fathers’ violent behaviour to the child might have been more serious, even if not more frequent, and another that fathers were violent to mothers’ (Cawson, 2002, p. 27).
o   Featherstone makes the following point in relation to the above findings (i.e. 49% mothers, 40% fathers involved in violent treatment): ‘These figures need to be located in the context of the gender division of labour in relation to child care. Women are much more likely to be involved in the day to day care of children than men, so it would appear that given men’s relative lack of involvement in such care, the figure of 40 per cent is high and replicates similar findings (Featherstone, 1996 cited in Featherstone and Evans, 2004, p. 28).
o   These figures also need to be located in the context that 10% of sample had never lived with a father (including step- and adoptive fathers), and one fifth of the sample had spent at least part of their childhood and 13% most of their childhood in a lone parent family (predominantly headed by a mother) (Cawson, 2002, p. 9 and 25).
o   The study also found that ‘there was a strong relationship between domestic violence and child maltreatment’ (Cawson, 2002, p. 37).
o   A quarter (26%) of respondents said that physical violence sometimes took place between those caring for them. For most, this was occasional or rare (21%) but for 5% it was constant or frequent (Cawson, 2002, p. 37).”
2.  Next assertion you made Ray was, “secondly women do lie about these issues…”- From the largest study done into the question of whom is actually intentionally making false allegations on the Family Court…”
“Results of this analysis show that neglect is the most common form of intentionally fabricated maltreatment, while anonymous reporters and non-custodial parents (usually fathers) most frequently prompt intentionally false reports.  Of the intentionally false allegations of maltreatment tracked by the CIS-98, custodial parents (usually mothers) and victimized children were least likely to fabricate reports of abuse or neglect.” Trocme N, Bala, N, ‘False Allegations of Abuse and Neglect When Parents Separate’ Journal of Child Abuse and Neglect, May 2004.
 
3.  Next you wrote that “charges and investigations are based on guilty until proven innocent.” Wrong again. The Family Court operates on the Briginshaw principle and the ‘friendly parent’ principle. Both operate against a protective approach to children until the allegation is proven. However, evidence of child abuse by its very nature is almost impossible to prove. Hence, we end up with what has been coined as “perverse reversal” by Pragnell (2000) where children end up being given into the custody of a parent that probably abused the child.
Unfortunately, the rest of your statements are more congruent with the rhetoric that has created the non-protective approach to children in the Family Court. This has resulted in a growing number of dead and abused children by an abusive parent whilst under court orders.

Lou says:

12:19pm | 09/02/10

Statistics may ‘show’ that mothers abuse children more than fathers, however if you actually look at the statistics from the source you will see it is a simple failure to report correctly. In cases of abuse (the majority of which are neglect) caregivers are listed in separated columns, the mother is usually first as they are often the primary caregiver., therefore are often represented as the abuser. Request the information from the Department for Child Protection, we did that very thing last year when statistics were used in a way to push the medias agenda instead of the truth.

Another reason for this phenomenon is the classification of domestic and family violence as abuse. Therefore the mother is reported for not providing a safe place for their children. Yes men are sometimes victims, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, a male is the perpetrator. Where is a woma and children to go? This is discounting the power and control (often financial controal as well, and the alienation from social supports) that exists in the relationship.

Get informed about what you are sayig before you make broad statements. Unfortunately you canot just rely on a few examples from people you know.

AJ says:

08:47pm | 09/02/10

Ah, but the point is that there’s a call to abolish 50/50 based on the statistics of the 10% which make it to family court.  Because 50/50 is letting down a small percentage of that 10%.

The cry bring back the old system reeks of ‘punish the non-custodial parent (and the children) by denying access just in case until they prove they’re innocent’.

It’s not logical to change an entire legal system based on less than 1 in ten cases.

Chris says:

01:48pm | 09/02/10

why are MRA’s (Mens Rights Associations i pressume) grubby? I find it sad that you feel the need to belittle organisations that a merly trying advocate fair treatment for a portion of society. Womens Rights groups have been around a long time and if those opposed to them had been succesful would the world have been a better place? I think not.

Thats the problem with equality/fairness things are apparently never equal/fair enough.

Bob says:

11:28am | 09/02/10

Sorry to be obtuse, but what is an MRA?

Jane Evans says:

02:21pm | 12/02/10

It seems a reality comment is needed her.  A very young child, less than 7, is unlikely to be able to fit the stranger-danger model of criminal cases as a witness.  The Doctor cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that any genital damage was done by the father, or by sexual, rather than other type of incident.  Even if they are sure it is sexually caused (like STD) they cannot say ‘it is impossible for the injury to have happened as claimed.  The allegation is changed to fit the charges, the charges rarely reflect the crime.  The Doctor has to be prepared to put up with the b/s of defence haranguing / abuse(way over reasonable examination), to create doubt - which is all that is needed.  And many will not expose themselves.  Who loses? The victim - who of course is NEVER entitled to legal representation.
It isn’t about ‘who dunnit’, its about prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

Then DoCS may not see the child as ‘at risk’ because it lives with the other parent. The mother is not an eye witness, and even if she were, her testimony would be ‘tainted’. 

All this talk about ‘innocent until proven guilty’ when the latest ‘darg’ from the legal eagles is ‘it is better for 99 GUILTY MEN (I ASSUME PEOPLE)  to GO FREE than 1 innocent to go to jail.  Better for whom?  the victims of the free-guilty?  For police to cut back on resources? for the DPP who is broke, the courts?

It is difficult to get the topic discussed.  Too many holes, too much embarrassment for important people.

Robert Smissen says:

11:09pm | 09/02/10

How true,, my first wife & mother of my three oldest children was a very violent person (mostly directed at me) When I tried to get family counseling all they seemed concerned about was HER feelings not the children. Her last 3 acts of violence were in one day including ripping a great hunk of my 15 yo daughter’s hair by the roots & almost biting her ear off.I laid a complaint on my 9 yo sons behalf & on my own behalf, my daughter laid a complaint on her own behalf. There was an independent witness to all 3 assaults. Guess what? the police contacted me & said they had interviewed my wife (now ex) & because she said that she was OK as the Dr. had given her tablets. the police refused to charge her even though a credible witness had seen all 3 crimes. HMMM, no charge, no conviction & no statistics.

Chris says:

01:41pm | 09/02/10

Well said - I agree completely with everything you’ve said.

Rational and well thought out writing with no gender bias - wish the article had been of the same quality

Martin G says:

10:19am | 09/02/10

In addition to my first post, there are allegations of rape in this article, surely this is a matter for the police and not Family Court???

Donna says:

06:19pm | 07/08/10

Who are these “wimmin”? and I think you’ll find a lot of it come from bad parenting in general, not just “wimmin”...

Chris says:

01:37pm | 09/02/10

Something seems odd in the example in her story - surely with all this evidence a complete investigation would have been undertaken and the father charged after the several years since the Dr’s noticed the abuse if the abuse was due to him.

I’m not saying I think it’s true or not but it seems odd.

Robert King says:

02:02am | 16/02/10

@Happy;

I’m not entirely convinced that your attribution of ‘right to contact’ to the child exclusively is correct. I am in a situation where, in the absence of a Court Order, my ex-partner’s continued denial of access to my children constitutes a federal offence; ‘unlawful parental abduction’. It seems that the ‘right to contact’ between non-custodial parents and their children is actually more reciprocal than you think. Women who, like my ex-partner (for reasons best known to themselves) deprive children and their fathers from contact with each other according to their own whims, may well be acting criminally.

Happy says:

10:08am | 11/02/10

No -one has said that ‘good fathers’ should give up their “right” to “their” children. That language betrays an undercurrent of ‘ownership’ of children, the very dynamic of a parent that abuses a child.
For the record, the cases in the Family Court (FC) have been shown to consist of child abuse that is “real, severe and serious” Brown et al, Au Institute of Criminology, 1999. Therefore, given that non-custodial parents (probably fathers) more frequently are the ones that intentionally fabricate false allegations against custodial parents (mostly mothers), and the cases in the FC are more often the worst sort of child abuse seen, ‘good fathers’ will most likely not end up in the FC. It is more likely that fathers ( and some mothers but not many) that have been abusive will end up in the FC.
What would one expect to hear from fathers in FC that have in fact abused their own children? Confessions to the fact that they have abused their own children or claims that they are innocent and are just victimised ‘good fathers’ like those that are not in the FC????
By the way- the ‘rights’ to contact do not belong to “fathers’ or non-custodial parents. Those “rights” belong to the children. Children have a right to safe and meaningful contact with non-custodial parents. It is the obligation of non-custodial parents to provide safe and thus a meaningful relationship with that child. A parent that has abused a child, and this includes domestic violence to the mother, cannot provide a safe and meaningful relationship to that child. They actually do more harm and damage.

cats says:

02:21pm | 10/02/10

“so you are saying that good fathers, should have to give up their right to there children, that is totally unfair”

i’m sorry, but what’s wrong with you?

James says:

10:40am | 09/02/10

Who ever told you that life is fair?

Happy says:

08:15pm | 09/02/10

There are 4 research studies in Au and many o/s including a large study in Canada in 2008. They all consistently point out that false allegations by mothers are rare. In Canada the reasearch into intentional false allehgations in FC was:
“Results: Consistent with other national studies of reported child maltreatment, CIS-98 data indicate that more than one-third of maltreatment investigations are unsubstantiated, but only 4% of all cases considered to be intentionally fabricated.  Within the sub-sample of cases wherein a custody or access dispute has occurred, the rate of intentionally false allegations is higher: 12%.  Results of this analysis show that neglect is the most common form of intentionally fabricated maltreatment, while anonymous reporters and non-custodial parents (usually fathers) most frequently prompt intentionally false reports.  Of the intentionally false allegations of maltreatment tracked by the CIS-98, custodial parents (usually mothers) and victimized children were least likely to fabricate reports of abuse or neglect.”
‘False Allegations of Abuse and Neglect When Parents Separate’, Trocmé, Nico
University of Toronto, Faculty of Social Work, Bala Nick, Queen’s University Law School
Child Abuse & Neglect, May 28, 2004.

DocBud says:

04:06pm | 09/02/10

While she is backing up that claim, may be she could back this one up as well:

“The children – who in one-in-five cases are the victims of sexual or physical assault – are forgotten.”

I don’t understand why people think that it is appropriate to conduct interviews such as this on the radio. If the father has a case to answer, let him answer it in court, and if he is guilty, throw away the key. But trial by media is wrong.

Robert Smissen says:

03:12pm | 09/02/10

I’m with you Mike, Tracey please back up your claims about the “minority” of false claims, this sounds more like a rant than reporting. When my first wife was violent towards my children, NOBODY wanted to know, as somebody who works with damaged young men, a consistent complaint was nobody would listen when they said their mothers sexually abused them. Tracey, put up or shut up

Mickey says:

11:28am | 09/02/10

Well said Mike. Children must be protected if there is any hint of violence. But this merely becomes another tactic in spiteful divorces. Then the father must prove his innocence or lose contact. Agree, the number of false claims seems to be understated by the author.

Eric says:

09:04am | 09/02/10

When ‘hell hath no fury’ there’s a;ways a good reason, possibly about the protection of vulnerable children.

idiots everywhere says:

02:18pm | 10/02/10

So says you, who believe that men who abuse are a “tiny, tiny minority”

Eric says:

05:18pm | 10/02/10

cats, I suggest that the police check out the allegations. If, as the mother claims, there is medical evidence, then the father should have been charged by police. The lack of any such action makes me question the whole story.

But, like a typical misandrist, you believe that any accusation against an innocent man must be true. Why do you hate men so much?

cats says:

02:14pm | 10/02/10

STFU Eric. Tracey clearly stated that 70% of shared parenting agreements go well, so there should not be an overhaul of the system. What do you suppose we do with children similar to the little girl in this article? Give her back to her rapist dad? Yes that’s a fine bloody thing to do. Men’s rights activists such as yourself would see this as a great leap forward. This is NOT got anything to do with feminists or whatever. Of course the article is from a female point of view - IT’S WRITTEN BY ONE. Never did she say that all men should have no access to their children. It’s just something you make up in your head because you have come to believe that all women are evil because you’re old and bitter about no woman choosing you for her partner. Either that or you’re just a troll, but i think somehow you have to have some belief in what you say.

protect our kids with truth says:

04:30pm | 09/02/10

Children’s welfare should be the number one consideration in all situations.  However, this story has the ring of a 2UE beat-up about it.  Having worked in law enforcement for many years I cannot believe that the Federal Police forced someone to send their child back to a “man that rapes her”.  If a doctor had identified damage to the girl’s genitals he or she would be required to report it.  Let’s look after the children and even err on removing adult rights where there is any doubt, but supporting “evidence” should at least have the ring of truth.

Chris says:

01:32pm | 09/02/10

I agree with Eric the article is most definatly written to promote a female over male case.

Personally I think all allegations should be investigated and the child removed from harm - by being placed in secure care unti the veracity of the allegations can be proved that way the abusive party (if allegations are true) has no unsupervised access and the lying manipulative party (if allegations are false) cannot corrupt the child and try an manipulate the child against the other parent.

I’m all for equal rights - I just want them to actually be EQUAL and Equal all the time not just when convenient politically.

PS Could I please sit in my allocated seat on a plane without being forced to move if the airline allocates an unsupervised child to sit next to me because I’m male - if you insist on the policy allocate seats so that it doesnt happen embarressing the staff and passenger involved or better yet equal rights have all unescorted children in a special chuildrens section were adults (male and female) can’t molest them and may actually have a more peaceful flight.

Jeremy says:

10:35am | 09/02/10

What’s sexist about it?  She says that allegations of abuse should be investigated thoroughly, and children not returned until they are certain to be safe.  She does say it from a women’s perspective at one point, but there’s no reason it wouldnt go both ways.