Several recent posts have discussed mother hazard / father hazard, for risk of injury or murder.

I have pointed out that international abductors presently run about 85% mother / 15% father. Unfortunately, as “judges” tend to publicize cases involving father abductors, the public are being seriously mislead, to believe that the main hazard comes from fathers. As a result, fathers are not as cautious as they would be, if the were honestly informed! Similarly, mothers can get the familycaught to be unduly restrictive on fathers access to their own children. Thus, the misleading images presented to the public, contribute to the number of abductions being larger, than if the public knew the truth.

Australian abduction experience is similar too, as indicated in Robyn Bowles book Taken in Contempt.

This website gives a list of international abductions from news reports, again more than 85% mother abductors:
abducted-children
This website draws attention to Greek caughts legitimising abductions by greek citizens, in defiance of its signing of Hague Convention. I am not sure if NZ is any better than Greece, in this regard?

For carefully conducted research on child abuse and also being willing to listen to the what the data says!!!:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families has recently released:
Child Maltreatment 2009

So, when the honest research shows fathers typically to be significantly lower risk parents, why do our caughts work so hard to place children into higher risk situations?

I am guessing it is the following list of reasons:
1. conflict of interest – they make more money by placing child with less financial parent and trying to
incite the more financial parent to appeal
2. self image as “hero” supporting the “weaker” parent!!!!
If one parent gets “legal help” from lawyers and “judges”, are they really in the weaker position?
I suggest that these heroical delusions place these people in the category of the
psychiatricly dangerously impaired, as well as legally incontinent.

It is important that the exact level of generalised risk is well understood, both by decision-makers (eg “judges” and social workers) and also by the public.

However, it is even more important that in each individual situation, decisions are made on the facts of that situation, not on general risks, let alone misunderstood or deliberately misunderstood general risks (AKA prejudice or corruption). The judicial oath essentially reinforces this. The failure of the familycaught to do this, reduces that caught to being a producer of high cost negative value pieces of paper, in other words, they are just relationship vandals.

I applaud those who try to draw the truth about these risks to the attention of the wider public.

It is equally important to draw the attention of the public to examples where familycaught and CYFs have wrongly assessed risk and made wrongful decisions, based on their careful misunderstanding of the true risks.

It is only when we can look at the real risks honestly, that we will give our children the best protection and best quality of upbringing.

Through all of the deception, it is only when the public can discern the truth, that we can best act to protect our children.

Cheers, MurrayBacon.