A FAMILY Court judge has ordered an eight-year-old boy to live with his stripper mother, despite acknowledging her partner was one of Australia's worst child pornography addicts.

Justice Tim Carmody ruled the mother's partner, jailed in 2005 for amassing Australia's biggest collection of child pornography, was not a risk to the boy's safety because his "interest is in young girls, not boys".

The January 16 judgment has left the boy's grandparents, who had sought to continue their custody of him, distraught and fearing for his safety. It has also shocked Family Court lawyers.
Link (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,21161626-2,00.html?from=public_rss)


The Family Court, in Australia at least, has been attempting to wrong its paternalistic ways of the past for the last few years. Has it gone too far, when one considers the decision of Justice Carmody to grant custody to a mother, knowing her partner was recently released on bail for having amassed the country's biggest child pornography collection to date?

In the past, one tended to attempt to shield children from people who have such obsessions. Teachers found to possess child pornography would be fired and denied access to small children (as one example). So how can the court send a child to live with his mother, knowing that her partner was arrested for the crime of possession of child pornography? The excuse it seems has been that the partner was interested in watching little girls in sexual activities and not little boys.

Great comfort to the grandparents who had been caring for the boy for the past year. The mother is a stripper, a profession many turn their noses up at, but it should not impinge on her ability to be a parent. However, her choice in boyfriends should be something the court needs to take into consideration. Or one would think. The judge decided that it was and imposed certain conditions:

The judge considered he posed no danger to the boy, but to make doubly sure the mother was not to live with him and when they were together the boy was never to be left alone with him.
Link (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21169645-7583,00.html)

The problem here is that the Family Court has no way of monitoring that the mother never leaves the boy alone with her child pornography obsessed boyfriend. It appears as though Justice Carmody believed the boyfriend when he said he was remorseful and that he never molested a child in the past. It is a shame Justice Carmody did not read the boyfriend's trial judge comments about his obsession.

"He had become addicted to looking at pornographic images of girls aged between 12 and 14, but despite subscribing to up to an astounding 350,000 images and 6400 videos, had never personally molested a child."

Justice Carmody added that the boyfriend was remorseful and did not "consider himself to be a pedophile".

However, the boyfriend's trial judge also said that each image represented the corruption and abuse of a child.

The man admitted to police that he had masturbated while viewing the images, which included images of girls under 14 performing sex acts.
Link (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,21161626-2,00.html?from=public_rss)

The parternal grandparents have voiced their concern, and quite rightly so it seems:

The grandparents were supported in their claim for temporary custody by European Union research presented by University of South Australia professor Freda Briggs, which found more than 70 per cent of men who downloaded child porn had already been a child abuser or would be so soon after.
Link (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,21170209-421,00.html?from=public_rss)


Now the only way the situation can be monitored to ensure that the child is never left alone with the boyfriend is if someone (eg the grandparents) catches them out and reports them to the Family Court. I have to agree with John Hirst when he states:

At first sight this seems an ultra-careful judgment until you learn that the Family Court has no agency to monitor and enforce its rulings.

If the mother, hard pressed, leaves the boy with her partner, no one will know. The case would return to court only if the grandparents in Hobart heard that the judge's order had been breached and took action at their expense to have the custody arrangements reconsidered.

The court is being irresponsible when it makes these fine-grained decisions without the means to enforce them.

In the absence of that machinery it needs to make decisions that are clean, plain, unambiguous. In this case, the mother should have been told that until she convinced the court that the relationship with the child-pornography addict was at an end, the boy would remain in Hobart with his grandparents.

One way she could demonstrate that the relationship was over would be to leave Perth, where the man resides, and return to Melbourne, where she lived when the case was last considered.
Link (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21169645-7583,00.html)


That way, according to Hirst, the boy can have regular contact with his father (who also lives in Hobart and is unable to care for him personally due to a mental illness) as well as his paternal grandparents (who have had custody of him this past year).

The mother, it seems is moving to Perth to be closer to her boyfriend, something even Justice Carmody has accepted as being the real reason. This is of course the boyfriend who is currently on bail for having been found to have the country's biggest child pornography collection.

Does this case highlight a downplay of child pornography? Or is this merely the Family Court attempting to curb to the feministic ideals after its paternalistic past? Should a parent's partner be taken into consideration when child custody decisions are being made?

anyone that preys on children in this manner should be sterilized, lobotomized, then chain to the top of a tree to die an agonizing death, hopefully by birds poking their eyes out.

yes, it should be a concern.

Yes, it should be a concern. And according to the following info, it was, in fact, taken into account by the judge; "Justice Tim Carmody ruled the mother's partner, ..., was not a risk to the boy's safety because his "interest is in young girls, not boys".

See? The judge DID take the child porno into account ...and even said so.

Just because you don't agree with the ruling is no sign that it wasn't taken into account, or that laws were disregarded.

Your post probably should have been "Do you agree with....." instead of what you asked.

Baron Max

Baron, don't you just love people who claim that a thing like this "was not a concern" when in fact this concern was evaluated? One-value logic would demand that if it is a concern, then the child should not be around the man, but more real-world logic allows the child porn to be a concern while actually evaluating the evidence.

I'm with Bells. This is absurd. It just illustrates how biased the courts are in favor of women.

Maybe the judge is right, and the boyfriend is only interested in female children. But why take that chance? And does anyone really believe that the boyfriend won't be alone with the kid? That's absurd.

Even if he only is intested in females, he might decide to make a home movie like in The Butterfly Effect, and he'll have his male role filled already! How convenient.

Yes, it should be a concern. And according to the following info, it was, in fact, taken into account by the judge; "Justice Tim Carmody ruled the mother's partner, ..., was not a risk to the boy's safety because his "interest is in young girls, not boys".

See? The judge DID take the child porno into account ...and even said so.

Just because you don't agree with the ruling is no sign that it wasn't taken into account, or that laws were disregarded.

Your post probably should have been "Do you agree with....." instead of what you asked.

Baron Max

Justice Carmody failed to take into consideration the boyfriend's trial judge finding that each of the images he was found in possession of constituted an abuse of a child.

Yes Justice Carmody has made the definition that he did not feel the boyfriend posed a danger to the little boy since his interest was in little girls. However he has also stated that he did not think it was wise for the mother to leave her son with the boyfriend without any form of supervision. Had the court been able to monitor and enforce such a ruling, one could say 'ok'. However the court has no way to enforce or ensure that she does not leave him with the boyfriend. If she leaves her son with him, no one would know, unless the grandparents call (for example) and basically catch her our in having left the boy with the boyfriend.

Justice Carmody gave the boy's grandparents – who had custody – 3½ hours to pack his bags, say tearful farewells and hand him over to his mother to take to Perth.

The grandparents said yesterday this made a mockery of Justice Carmody's ruling that the boyfriend was not a risk to the boy's wellbeing, and was impossible to police, particularly when the mother worked nights.
Link (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21161606-2702,00.html)

I have to agree with the grandparents. There is no way of knowing if the mother leaves her son with her boyfriend at night while she's out working.

It appears even the Western Australian child protection services are concerned for this child's safety. After having received a call from the boy's grandfather, they are now attempting to see just how much contact the boy has with the boyfriend.

However, West Australian child protection authorities, alerted by the boy's grandfather, yesterday said they were "concerned" for the child's safety and were trying to establish the level of contact between him and the boyfriend.

"The Department is concerned for the safety of this child and is a making an immediate assessment of the situation to ensure the child is protected," said Judy Hogben, acting executive director for Community Development.

And they are right to be concerned.


Professor Briggs said research from the University of Cork, Ireland, conducted for the European Union, found more than 70 per cent of men who downloaded child porn had either abused a child or would do so soon after.

The boy's grandparents, who had sought to extend their custody of the boy after learning of the boyfriend's conviction, said any degree of risk was unacceptable.

"Whether it's 70 per cent or 1 per cent, the risk is too high and to expose an eight-year-old to that is just unforgivable," the boy's grandmother told The Weekend Australian yesterday.
Comforting for them isn't it?

No matter how minute the risk, the child should not be placed in a position where he could come into contact with a possibly potential paedophile, nor should he be placed in a position where he can come into direct contact with child pornography.

And no Baron. I did not wish to ask whether you agreed with it or not. I would have assumed anyone with any sense of a brain would agree that sending a child to live with a parent and putting them in close contact with someone who was obsessed with child pornography is inherently wrong. It appears the Family Court disagrees however.

Maybe Justice Carmody should have taken into consideration that the State the boy would be living in with his mother considers showing a child pornography to be child sex abuse.

Sexual assault can be any sexual behaviour or act which is threatening, violent, forced, coercive or exploitative and to which a person as not given consent or was not able to give consent.

It can take many forms -

...

Being forced, coerced or bribed to view pornographic images

....


Sexual Abuse:

...occurs when someone in a position of power and authority over another (adult or child) has taken advantage of a person's trust and respect to involve them in sexual activity. Any of the above acts can be involved.
Link (http://www.kemh.health.wa.gov.au/services/sarc/1330.pdf)


Lets not forget, it has been established that the boyfriend has an obsession with child pornography. It is probably only a matter of time before the boy becomes exposed to it. I doubt anyone would agree that an 8 year old boy would be in a position to give consent.

.... to be a concern while actually evaluating the evidence.

Oh, heaven forbid that we, of sciforums, ever, EVER, consider actual evidence!! I'd fall over dead of a fuckin' heart attack if anyone actually presented unbiased evidence for any-fuckin'-thing around here!

Here at sciforums, we leap to judgement and "firm opinions". And interestingly, we do it even while condemning President Bush and the US of leaping to judgement about the Iraqi War. Interesting, ain't it? :D

Baron Max

Maybe the judge is right, and the boyfriend is only interested in female children. But why take that chance?

Why take the chance?? Wow, no I see that you're a man after my own heart! If someone just "seems" like a fuckin' criminal, maybe if he just dresses like a fuckin' gang-banger, we should not take the chance ...put the fucker in jail or execute him immediately!

Good one, Madanthony, I hope you keep that in mind for the next elections.

Baron Max

I would have assumed anyone with any sense of a brain would agree that sending a child to live with a parent and putting them in close contact with someone who was obsessed with child pornography is inherently wrong. It appears the Family Court disagrees however.

Yeah, well, you know more about the law than anyone else in the world, Bells, so I'm not sure what to say at this point. Especially since you know more about the case than even the judge who presided over it. And since you know, then I'll leave it all in your able hands ....and wash my own.

Baron Max

Yeah, well, you know more about the law than anyone else in the world, Bells, so I'm not sure what to say at this point. Especially since you know more about the case than even the judge who presided over it. And since you know, then I'll leave it all in your able hands ....and wash my own.

Baron Max

Can't answer huh?

That's the thing, this is a hard case. A friend of mine from law school and who now specialises in Family Law finds this case unbelievable. As far as he had been concerned, any custody hearing where a child could be placed in a home where he/she was likely to come into contact with someone convicted of child pornography (or any form of child sex crime) would be a moot point. It simply would not happen.

Why this has shocked the legal community is because of the judge's ruling, or more to the point, his reasoning. To say that the boyfriend posed no threat because he was into little girls, and the child in question in the custody hearing is a little boy... I don't think I have ever heard of any such a case where a Family Court judge to make such a ruling. Especially in light of the fact the boyfriend does have an obsession, something even Justice Carmody acknowledges. Do you honestly think that he will somehow curb his obsession when he is at his girlfriend's home or she is at his home with the boy in tow? Do you actually think that she won't ever leave him with her boyfriend while she's out working at night?

Considering the cost of child care, and how much it would cost to leave a child with a carer over night, she might take the cheap and free option and leave him with the boyfriend. No one is to know as the court cannot monitor or enforce the Judge's admonition to not leave him in the boyfriend's care. Child protection services in WA are concerned enough about his safety to now be investigating just how much contact the boy could have with the boyfriend.

But lets look further down the track. What has this case opened a door to? Imagine someone found guilty of paedophilia arguing that they should keep custody of their child because their sexual interest was in little girls, while their child is a little boy. Should they be given custody of said son?.. 'No you're honour, I only get horny at little girls and my child is a boy, so of course he's quite safe'.

It is easy for you to wash your hands of it. After all, we are not all blessed with the mind of a sheep who will simply go along with what anyone in authority has said. There is something wrong with this case, hence why so many in the legal field and in the field of child protection are aghast at the Justice's ruling. It is a virtual pandora's box and an ugly one at that. This case will come up again and again in future custody hearings and the precedence it has set is a higly dangerous one.

Edit: Removed by the immoderator.

I haven't really followed this thread, so I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet. Apart from the issue that the man might molest the boy, or whatever, there is also the issue of what the boy might learn by being exposed to an environment where child pornography is viewed as acceptable. What will be his attitudes to sex as he grows up?

So are people who watch murder mysteries dangerous to have around anyone? I know it's not the same thing, but recently a woman who drowned her three children, Amanda Hamm, got just ten years, which is less than people are sentenced to for having the remnants of deleted child porn on their hard drives, which could have gotten there through spam or adware.


I think the fact he admitted to masturbating while watching the child pornography tends to indicate the 600,000+ instances of it on his computer did not just get there through spam or adware.

I don't mind the idea that someone who watches child pornography might be a danger to children, in fact I would go along with it, except that we're asked to do so without using our critical faculties. In fact, those who think independently on this particular subject are obviously perverts, right?
No one is asking you to agree without thought.

As you have admitted yourself, you would agree that someone who is obsessed with child pornography might pose a danger to a child. For example, would you be happy if your child's teacher was found to be in possession of child pornography on his/her computer in the school room? I know I would not be. Where should we draw the line? Did this judge think independently? Or is he following the notion of 'the child belongs with the mother', which has been the case of late in the Family Court system, regardless of any detriment to the child. Lets face it, some parents do not deserve or should never be allowed within miles of their children, let alone be granted custody of them. Is the Family Court ignoring the safety of a child in following the recent trend to not be so paternalistic as it had been in the past?

What will be his attitudes to sex as he grows up?
Who knows. I cannot even begin to fathom what his upbringing will be like or what his attitude to sex will be. His mother, who happens to be a stripper, chooses to be with a man who gets off on watching little girls engage in sexual activities. I doubt it would be a healthy attitude.

Just realized that I'm not paid enough for this.

So let's boil it down to the short story: About this issue, there is a whole century of literature, some of it knowledgeable, some of it not, some of it entirely rabid and paranoid, and it seems to me that in general the government and its various enforcement arms have cherry-picked to find the backing for the absolute worst ways to do things. This is what tends to happen when every option comes down to some form of destruction.

And someone who has never seen a pornographic picture in his or her life might be a danger to a child. Someone who reads murder mysteries, same thing. Most of my teachers were horribly dangerous to me when I was a child and they may have been fans of murder mysteries, but to them human gonads were to be shot on sight.

I fail to see what a fictional works or 'murder mysteries' has to do with movies or images where children are forced into having sex with adults.

However, you are correct, anyone, whether they watch child pornography or not can pose a danger to a child. However lets have a look at the boyfriend in this instance. He has admitted to becoming sexually aroused at the images of little girls being forced into sex with adult men. Now I don't know about you, but I would imagine that forcing a child to have sex with an adult would be detrimental to said child, just as I would imagine someone who finds it sexually arousing enough to masturbate might raise some eyebrows.

Had the boy in question been a little girl, he would not have been sent to live with his mother, because the boyfriend was sexually into little girls. Do you understand now? The judge did not question whether child pornography is wrong or not. He said quite openly it is wrong. However, his reasoning for allowing the mother custody was because the child in question is a boy. Had he been a little girl, the parents would have had custody.

Loaded question, right? So what exactly is wrong with me if I admit that I really don't know how strong an indicator that would be? Also, I don't think that anyone does. If 70 percent of men who downloaded child porn were child abusers either before or shortly after the fact, does this include the charge that having the child porn in their possession is child abuse even if the child doesn't see it? The article in the newspaper didn't reference any peer-reviewed article and I've seen other such exaggerations.
I think it was a reasonable question in light of the situation we are discussing.

University of Chicago psychiatrist Sharon Hirsch said exposure to online pornography could lead kids to become sexually active too soon, or could put them at risk for being victimized by sexual predators if they visit sites that prey on children.

"They're seeing things that they're really not emotionally prepared to see yet, which can cause trauma to them," Hirsch said.

Exposure also could skew their perceptions about what constitutes a healthy sexual relationship, said Janis Wolak, the study's lead author and a researcher at the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research centre.
Link (http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/rising-number-of-kids-exposed-to-online-porn/2007/02/05/1170524016988.html)


For starters.

It becomes child abuse if the child is intentionally shown the images, that is the law in the state the boy has been sent to live in. And what is the likelihood that this boy will not see it at the hands of the boyfriend? After all, this man is obsessed with it. Do you honestly think the mother will not leave him with the boyfriend at night when she goes to work? After all, she knows the court cannot enforce the judge's obiter. There is no one to check up on whether she has left the boy with the boyfriend or not.

You doubt that it would be a "healthy" attitude, so you would dictate that his "attitude" be manipulated by allowing his grandparents to take him away from his mother. You can't even fathom what the attitude would consist of, but you still think that your misgivings give you the right to overrule the wishes of the mother, even though it's now about an "attitude" instead of actual sexual abuse.
The child had already been living with the grandparents for this past year. This custody hearing came about because the mother wished to move to Western Australia to be closer to the boyfriend.

Back to the murder mysteries. By your logic any teacher who reads murder mysteries should be kept from contact with children, and so should anyone else. It would give the children a "bad attitude" and perhaps inspire someone to kill a child.
What does reading a who done it have to do with someone intentionally downloading child pornography, and then sitting there masturbating while viewing the images of little girls being forced into sex with adults? Do you view them as being mutually exclusive or even similar?

What about the idea that the desire to view child porn may come from something that is not the child porn? How would any person psychologically connect with it if they didn't already have something in their makeup? Also, how can anyone be so moronic as to settle on the pornography as the cause when there has been so much research that points to a complex assortment of causes that actually contribute? What happened to the "safety valve" theory, also?
Had that been the case in this instance, then it would have been a different matter. However the boyfriend has admitted to being sexually aroused and turned on by little girls having sex with adult men. He was jailed for it. He also admitted to being obsessed with child pornography and has been caught having one of the biggest collection of it in the country. He does not view the child pornography for the soundtrack or the lighting. He is physically and sexually attracted to little girls having sex with grown men.

Did you know that videos, whether they are on the computer or on film, consist of many frames that can be converted to still pictures? 30 frames per second equals 1800 frames per minute or 108000 per hour. Five hours of video make 640,000 images. Do I believe that they counted them that way? Most likely they did.

I see that the emotional trauma theory is bandied about pretty selectively. "Could cause emotional trauma"? When they weasel like that they get to say it when in all honesty they can't say it. Yes, when you use a certain mindset, "could cause emotional trauma" is the same thing as "does cause emotional trauma" even if they can't define what that emotional trauma is. Would it take someone's attitude away from what is approved by government? Possibly, or it could drive them to hate child molestation even more.

Considering what I have seen "adults" attracted to and obsessed with, this is just one more fagot on the fire to me. Please feel free to obsess about a little bit of kindling that may or may not be smouldering while ignoring the fires that are gnawing away at the whole structure.

One of the worst things about this is that one time the judge shows an attempt at rationality, it is when there is a case that appears to be one of the worst in which the accused person is not actually accused of molesting a child. Judges in the U.S. routinely jail people for ten years or more for deleted cache files on their computer and they might only have glanced at a couple of them or possibly never saw them at all. Why can't someone apply a little rationality and logic to those cases?

Bringing up a child in an environment where the mother is a stripper and her boyfriend likes child pornography is just not healthy, IMO.

You're right. She should have had an abortion.

SO...gays are ok...trans sex is ok....your son/daughter killing humans under military is ok...but o my have you see the wee wee of that 3 year old girl? well if you have you are do for execution!...

...like, screw this world with its wrong ideals of life.

SO...gays are ok...trans sex is ok....your son/daughter killing humans under military is ok...but o my have you see the wee wee of that 3 year old girl? well if you have you are do for execution!...

...like, screw this world with its wrong ideals of life.

You mean that you didn't know that pornography is worse than George Bush waving his weapon of mass destruction?

You mean that you didn't know that pornography is worse than George Bush waving his weapon of mass destruction?

well duh....

SO...gays are ok...trans sex is ok....your son/daughter killing humans under military is ok...but o my have you see the wee wee of that 3 year old girl? well if you have you are do for execution!...

...like, screw this world with its wrong ideals of life.

You don't think there is anything wrong with a grown man feeling sexually aroused and wanting to have sex with a 3 year old girl when he sees her "wee wee"?

We aren't just talking about "seeing" a child's "wee wee". We are talking about a person finding said child's "wee wee" to be sexually arousing. Lets imagine you have a small child and take this child to the beach. She's a cute chubby little thing and she's running around on the sand and into the water naked, as toddlers are want to do at the beach. You don't see anything wrong with it. It's just a toddler doing what toddlers do. Enjoying the freedom of being naked while playing in sand and water. And then you notice a guy up the beach who is staring intently at your daughter while his hand works frantically under the towel that he has discreetly placed over his lap. As the proud father of this little girl, do you feel (a) enraged that this man finds your naked toddler sexually arousing?.. or (b) feel proud that he does and don't find anything wrong with it?

How about if one day you find out the child care centre you have been leaving your child at has been performing sexual acts with your child, as well as the other children there, and posting the images on the internet for the sexual pleasure of other people who are into that kind of thing. Would you react the same as you have in your post with:


"SO...gays are ok...trans sex is ok....your son/daughter killing humans under military is ok...but o my have you see the wee wee of that 3 year old girl? well if you have you are do for execution!..."

Sounds nasty and dirty doesn't it? But that is what child pornography is. Someone getting off at looking at that 3 year old girl's "wee wee" and wanting to have sex with it or imagining the grown man having sex with said 3 year old was them or wishing it were so.

Is it ok for someone to masturbate while looking at that 3 year old girl's "wee wee" in your opinion? And should that same person then be given leave by a court to come into regular contact with other children, so long as those other children are little boys and not little girls? In the end, this is what it comes down to. Should the court take the above behaviours into consideration when deciding on a child's custody.

anyone that preys on children in this manner should be sterilized, lobotomized, then chain to the top of a tree to die an agonizing death, hopefully by birds poking their eyes out.

Or research could be done into what causes this kind of behaviour and then prevent it/fix it.

As you have admitted yourself, you would agree that someone who is obsessed with child pornography might pose a danger to a child.

I've read that several times ...and taken some time to think about it. The word "might" keeps coming up in my thoughts. I wonder what life would be like if people were all "convicted" for what they MIGHT do? Is just the possibility of something happening enough to take the child away from the parent?

Lets face it, some parents do not deserve or should never be allowed within miles of their children, let alone be granted custody of them.

Again ..."convicted" by what MIGHT happen? Is that the way you'd like society and the courts to act, Bells? And what about things like drinking too much occasionally in public bars or with his buddies? What MIGHT they do at home? Drugs, maybe? ...take the kids away because they MIGHT drive with the kid under the influence of booze or drugs? Or perhaps get the kids hooked on booze or drugs or both?

Is the Family Court ignoring the safety of a child in following the recent trend to not be so paternalistic as it had been in the past?

Let's just say that we, as a society, take the "endangered" kids into protective custody. What do we do with them? And please don't cite adoption, because there's already so many kids up for adoption that there's not enough people to care for them or adopt them or state money to care for them. If we add in all of the kids you want protected, ....?

I cannot even begin to fathom what his upbringing will be like or what his attitude to sex will be. His mother, who happens to be a stripper, chooses to be with a man who gets off on watching little girls engage in sexual activities. I doubt it would be a healthy attitude.

And so based on just your admitted doubt, you'd take the kid into state-protective custody? And is so, what of all those others that you've mentioned above?

And I can't help but wonder if you know or are aware of the conditions of state-sponsored childcare facilities and adoption agencies, etc? Perhaps out of the frying pan into the fire?

Baron Max

You don't think there is anything wrong with a grown man feeling sexually aroused and wanting to have sex with a 3 year old girl when he sees her "wee wee"?

We aren't just talking about "seeing" a child's "wee wee". We are talking about a person finding said child's "wee wee" to be sexually arousing. Lets imagine you have a small child and take this child to the beach. She's a cute chubby little thing and she's running around on the sand and into the water naked, as toddlers are want to do at the beach. You don't see anything wrong with it. It's just a toddler doing what toddlers do. Enjoying the freedom of being naked while playing in sand and water. And then you notice a guy up the beach who is staring intently at your daughter while his hand works frantically under the towel that he has discreetly placed over his lap. As the proud father of this little girl, do you feel (a) enraged that this man finds your naked toddler sexually arousing?.. or (b) feel proud that he does and don't find anything wrong with it?

How about if one day you find out the child care centre you have been leaving your child at has been performing sexual acts with your child, as well as the other children there, and posting the images on the internet for the sexual pleasure of other people who are into that kind of thing. Would you react the same as you have in your post with:


"SO...gays are ok...trans sex is ok....your son/daughter killing humans under military is ok...but o my have you see the wee wee of that 3 year old girl? well if you have you are do for execution!..."

Sounds nasty and dirty doesn't it? But that is what child pornography is. Someone getting off at looking at that 3 year old girl's "wee wee" and wanting to have sex with it or imagining the grown man having sex with said 3 year old was them or wishing it were so.

Is it ok for someone to masturbate while looking at that 3 year old girl's "wee wee" in your opinion? And should that same person then be given leave by a court to come into regular contact with other children, so long as those other children are little boys and not little girls? In the end, this is what it comes down to. Should the court take the above behaviours into consideration when deciding on a child's custody.

dont bring me into this toilet business. Added to the fact that I havent kissed or had any sort of sx relationship...goody I suppress my emotions I have towards the opposite sex...of course the thing pops up anyways. But yeah sexually attracted to 3 year olds...problem there for sure....9 year old?...hmmm...depends....14 year old? well that age is when many at their puberty stage and such. ok gtg.

I've read that several times ...and taken some time to think about it. The word "might" keeps coming up in my thoughts. I wonder what life would be like if people were all "convicted" for what they MIGHT do? Is just the possibility of something happening enough to take the child away from the parent?

The child was already away from the parent. He was living with his grandparents. The reason this custody hearing came about was because the mother wished to move to Perth to be closer to her new boyfriend.

The research states he has a 70% chance of committing child abuse if he has not already done so. Should a child be placed in such a situation knowing the risks?

Again ..."convicted" by what MIGHT happen? Is that the way you'd like society and the courts to act, Bells? And what about things like drinking too much occasionally in public bars or with his buddies? What MIGHT they do at home? Drugs, maybe? ...take the kids away because they MIGHT drive with the kid under the influence of booze or drugs? Or perhaps get the kids hooked on booze or drugs or both?
Yes. To be honest, yes in some situations, it is best to take preventative measures. How many times have parents who have previously been suspected of child abuse been given custody of their children, only to have the child wind up dead or severely abused? Lets say a parent has been convicted of sexually abusing a child and has served their sentence and attempts to get custody of their child upon release. Should the court grant them custody because he "might" not abuse another child again? The answer would be no. Past and previous behaviour can be an indication of what is to come in the future.

We aren't talking about booze and drugs. Parents have lost custody for such offences as well Baron. But this case is different. This case is about a mother, who's child was living with her ex-inlaws, who wished to take said child back (from a safe environment where he was enrolled in a good school, had made friends and was well cared for by the grandparents), move him from what he knows and loves to take him to Perth so she can be closer to her child pornography obsessed boyfriend, where she will also be working nightshift with no one to care for the child. Justice Carmody has ordered she not leave the boy with the boyfriend, but there is no way to monitor that she does not. Child care being as expensive as it is, and especially for night time child care, who is to say she won't take the easy way out and leave him with the boyfriend, without supervision? Do you honestly think someone obsessed with child pornography won't get back into it again, considering his level of obsession? Come on Baron, don't be so naive for argument's sake.

Let's just say that we, as a society, take the "endangered" kids into protective custody. What do we do with them? And please don't cite adoption, because there's already so many kids up for adoption that there's not enough people to care for them or adopt them or state money to care for them. If we add in all of the kids you want protected, ....?
You still don't get it. This particular child had been living with his grandparents for a year before his mother wished to have custody of him again. As to removing children from dangerous households, we already do that. The children, in Australia at least, are placed in foster care where they go and live with other families.

Don't you think children should be protected Baron?

And so based on just your admitted doubt, you'd take the kid into state-protective custody? And is so, what of all those others that you've mentioned above?

And I can't help but wonder if you know or are aware of the conditions of state-sponsored childcare facilities and adoption agencies, etc? Perhaps out of the frying pan into the fire?

Who said anything about state sponsored child care? His grandparents had been caring for him and were fighting to keep on doing so. Hence the custody hearing. Did you not even read the articles or the extracts posted?

This child wasn't going to go into state sponsored care, he would have continued to live with his grandparents, who had already been taking care of him. What the court has done in this instance is to take him from a stable and loving environment, where he was going to a good school, had friends and family who cared for him, loving grandparents and force him to move to his mother who was moving Western Australia so she could be closer to her new boyfriend.

I'd guess the father isn't exactly a model citizen, but then putting a kid into that situation - stripper mum and kiddy porn stepdad. That's totally wrong.

If I was the natural father and I'd lost my kid like that I'd go postal. Poor grandparents.

The reason this custody hearing came about was because the mother wished to move to Perth to be closer to her new boyfriend.

Well, that's her right, ain't it? Or do you now wish to limit the woman's mvement in the land of Oz?

The research states he has a 70% chance of committing child abuse if he has not already done so.

Now how in the world would they ever be able to do that kind of "research"??? Please explain that to me.

But even so ....according to your cited "research", there's still a 30% chance that he won't commit child abuse. I wonder what other such "research" we could come up with that would prevent anyone from having any contact with any child?

Don't you think children should be protected Baron?

Most assuredly! But, Bells, if we did it my way, you wouldn't even be permitted to have children! And neither would a lot of the women ...so you wouldn't be alone.

Come on Baron, don't be so naive for argument's sake.

So from now on I should just agree with you? You're right, and if I don't agree with you, then I'm wrong? ...along with anyone else who doesn't fully agree with you? Is that the way your court cases always go for you?

Baron Max

I'd guess the father isn't exactly a model citizen, ...

Ain't many people are, ya' know? And that includes women, too, not just the fathers.

...but then putting a kid into that situation - stripper mum and kiddy porn stepdad. That's totally wrong.

Ain't that a similar argument that some people have for not allowing children in homes with gay couples?

I wonder what other similar human characteristics we could come up with to prevent people from having or raising children? Boozers? Druggies? Gays? Lesbians? Gamblers? Gun advocates? ...the list is probably endless, ain't it?

Baron Max

Ain't many people are, ya' know? And that includes women, too, not just the fathers.
I'd agree there. I'm thinking if he was an upstanding member of the community it would have been an easy choice to make. The kid stays with the father. So, I wonder..

Ain't that a similar argument that some people have for not allowing children in homes with gay couples?

I wonder what other similar human characteristics we could come up with to prevent people from having or raising children? Boozers? Druggies? Gays? Lesbians? Gamblers? Gun advocates? ...the list is probably endless, ain't it?

Baron Max
Boozers, druggies... yeah, depending on their habits.
I'm not getting into the other ones.

The point is that the guy looks at pictures of children being abused. He gets off on it in fact. He enjoys looking at children being abused. Most people with kids can't stand the thought of children being abused. Most people believe children should be protected.

If this guy enjoys it when children are being abused, how likely do you reckon it is that he'll protect this kid and care about it being abused?

Judges aren't always right, baron.. You might stick to your shitty "Well, if a judge decided. Well, it's the law, right? Well, they should have read code 9, section 47b before they did that, ya know?" answers, but it doesn't cut sometimes.

Imagine, the kid had been in the house with stripper mum and kiddy porn boyfriend for a week. Mum goes to work and leaves the kid with kiddy porn man. Kiddy porn man rapes the little boy. Everyone would say they saw it coming, but you'd still stand by the decision to put the kid in that situation?

I'm not saying it'd happen, but there's a chance isn't there? And it's a reasonable chance, higher than John Doe on the street I'd imagine.

SO...gays are ok...trans sex is ok....your son/daughter killing humans under military is ok...but o my have you see the wee wee of that 3 year old girl? well if you have you are do for execution!...

Did the 3 year old consent to being used as a sexual object?

A funny thing about that "70 percent" is that this is for all child abuse, not for sexual abuse. Maybe someone should do a breakdown of those figures, or is this going to be another thing that people simply believe because someone said it?

Did the 3 year old consent to being used as a sexual object?

look here...i already said its wrong. read above.

to sum it up in two words:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mental%20defect

er maybe mental disease, this was explained quite succinctly at my university but i forgot it. the judge should have googled.

Well, that's her right, ain't it? Or do you now wish to limit the woman's mvement in the land of Oz?

Has happened before in cases where one parent has custody and wishes to move away.

Now how in the world would they ever be able to do that kind of "research"??? Please explain that to me.

But even so ....according to your cited "research", there's still a 30% chance that he won't commit child abuse. I wonder what other such "research" we could come up with that would prevent anyone from having any contact with any child?
Ah but there is also a 70% chance that he will or already has and has not been caught.

Tell me Baron, do you think someone obsessed with child pornography should have regular and open access to a small child? Do you think this child will be safe in such an environment? Should a child even be placed in a situation that is so risky?

Most assuredly! But, Bells, if we did it my way, you wouldn't even be permitted to have children! And neither would a lot of the women ...so you wouldn't be alone.
And what about my parenting style or myself would have you prevent me from being a parent?

So from now on I should just agree with you? You're right, and if I don't agree with you, then I'm wrong? ...along with anyone else who doesn't fully agree with you? Is that the way your court cases always go for you?
On the contrary. I am just curious as to how naive you can actually be. After all, we all know you love playing the devil's advocate in everything.

As to the cases I used to try, heh.. they were usually cases of people who abused children and rape cases. So yes, this case holds a special interest for me. I have seen the worst of what someone can do to a child and I am sure there is worst stuff out there.

Do I think this child should have been forced to live with his mother? Under the circumstances no. I don't think a child should be removed from a loving and stable home to move in with a mother who wished to take him away from all he knows and loves and put him in direct contact with someone who gets off sexually by watching little children engage in sexual acts. Call me strange, but that's how I see it. The safety of the child should always be paramount. The rights of the parents frankly come second to a child's safety. Having carried a child and given birth to it does not mean that you can do anything with it. Children have been removed from a parent's custody for far less than what this woman has done and won the right to do in court.

A funny thing about that "70 percent" is that this is for all child abuse, not for sexual abuse. Maybe someone should do a breakdown of those figures, or is this going to be another thing that people simply believe because someone said it?
You're kidding right?

You don't think 'abuse' of a child is bad enough? It needs to be broken down?

I think the research points to sexual abuse of a child, which falls under the general banner of child abuse.

Bells, the "70 percent" figure may not be valid at all, or it may consist of acts that barely fit under the definition. I realize that the average human has no hope of understanding such things, but how about we at least go through the motions of trying?

I would like to know how they come up with those figures. A person who is identified as a sexual deviant is going to be accused of abusive behavior if someone slaps his face. The "very nature of the offense" causes people to think that it is OK to take great liberties with the truth, which changes "the very nature" but which they just see as verifying it.

Bells, the "70 percent" figure may not be valid at all, or it may consist of acts that barely fit under the definition. I realize that the average human has no hope of understanding such things, but how about we at least go through the motions of trying?

I would like to know how they come up with those figures. A person who is identified as a sexual deviant is going to be accused of abusive behavior if someone slaps his face. The "very nature of the offense" causes people to think that it is OK to take great liberties with the truth, which changes "the very nature" but which they just see as verifying it.
Well you can look it up if you wish.:)

The figures actually range from 10 - 70%. One research in the US has put it at approximately 35% (refer to the first link). However as it is difficult to really investigate as the only pool they have to get their information from in regards to child pornography and paedophilia is from those who have been caught and are in the criminal justice system. The figures could be much worse in reality.


Gives some of the figures from page 17 (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Society/documents/2004/01/12/pornographyreport.pdf)

Gives some detail of how they conduct their research into child pornography and offenders (http://www.copine.ie/attachments/isuma.pdf)

And what about my parenting style or myself would have you prevent me from being a parent?

You work outside the home ...and thus giving the raising of your kid(s) to someone else.

On the contrary. I am just curious as to how naive you can actually be. After all, we all know you love playing the devil's advocate in everything.

Then hereafter, I won't bother to respond to anything that you post.

Baron Max

You work outside the home ...and thus giving the raising of your kid(s) to someone else.

Do I?

How do you figure that out?

Are you imagining this or do you know this for a fact? You have become very good at accusing people of things you know nothing about. So how do you know, or what makes you think that I work outside the home, allowing someone else to raise my child? Proof Baron?

Then hereafter, I won't bother to respond to anything that you post.
Of course not.:rolleyes:

Duh!!?? Huh?

I don't think it's fair to assume that merely because a man (or woman, for that matter) looks at child pornography, they are likely to rape their own child. There's no conclusive evidence to demonstrate that such an assertion is valid.