What's the truth? Who causes more child deaths?

[The Dave©]

Saw this in another group and thought it would be of interest here. I
especially like how this group is labeled "controversial". I guess
you're controversial when you're telling people things they don't want
to hear.

I do have a question that maybe someone can answer. 25 out of 40
deaths were caused by the mothers, which sounds bad for mothers. What
would that translate into as a percentage of single-mother households
vs single-father households. For example, many people like to point
out that there are far more whites on welfare than blacks, but it's a
deceiving statistic because blacks are a relatively small minority of
the overall population and the reality is that a much higher percentage
of the black population is on welfare than the percentage of the white
population. Either side can point to numbers in an attempt to sway the
ignorant, while conveniently leaving out the whole story. I wonder if
the same thing is occurring here. Since men get full custody far less
often, I have to wonder.

-----------------

http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,7168496%255E
953,00.html
Children of break-ups 'safer with their dads'
Phil Bartsch
05sep03
A FEDERAL parliamentary inquiry into child custody arrangements was told
yesterday that children were safer living with their biological fathers.

Co-founder of the controversial Men's Rights Agency, Sue Price, told the
inquiry despite the "maternal preference" of the Family Law Court in
custody battles, statistics showed children were more likely to be
abused, or even killed, when in the custody of their mothers.

"The research shows children are safer with their biological fathers,"
she said.

An Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report had found 42 per
cent of substantiated abuse - including physical, emotional and sexual
abuse - happened in single-female-parent families, she said.

The report said only 4 per cent of abuse occurred in single-male-parent
families.

Mrs Price also said mothers had been identified as the primary
suspect/perpetrator in 25 of 40 deaths deemed "family" murders in NSW
between 1996 and 1999.

The studies exposed the myth that most child abuse was perpetrated "by
all these violent men out there".

In her submission to the inquiry on the Gold Coast yesterday morning,
Mrs Price said men were often the victims of false allegations in the
Family Law Court where there was "very little testing of evidence and no
penalties of perjury".

But she claimed as many women as men supported changes to child custody
arrangements in favour of shared parenting.

She also called on parental rights to be reinstated into the Family Law
Act.

"Shared parenting is much better for children," she said.

"Where you've got two perfectly decent parents why should a court be
saying to either of those parents that they can't see their children or
restricting the time they have with them.

"We hope that, if they bring this in, families will then make their own
arrangements to see their children as much as possible."

Mrs Price claimed parental rights had been removed from the Act in the
mid-'90s "leaving the Family Court as the sole arbiter of what happens
to children".

The inquiry was also told of a growing number of children being cared
for full-time by grandparents and other relatives.

"This new kind of family group is becoming more and more common in our
society and therefore needs to be given serious consideration when new
laws and policies for families are being drafted," Kincare spokeswoman
Maree Lubach said.

Ms Lubach said recognition and legal rights for custodial grandparents
in the Family Law Court was needed to ensure the welfare of the
children.

[...8MM..]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> Saw this in another group and thought it would be of interest here. I
> especially like how this group is labeled "controversial". I guess
> you're controversial when you're telling people things they don't want
> to hear.
>
> I do have a question that maybe someone can answer. 25 out of 40
> deaths were caused by the mothers, which sounds bad for mothers. What
> would that translate into as a percentage of single-mother households
> vs single-father households. For example, many people like to point
> out that there are far more whites on welfare than blacks, but it's a
> deceiving statistic because blacks are a relatively small minority of
> the overall population and the reality is that a much higher percentage
> of the black population is on welfare than the percentage of the white
> population. Either side can point to numbers in an attempt to sway the
> ignorant, while conveniently leaving out the whole story. I wonder if
> the same thing is occurring here. Since men get full custody far less
> often, I have to wonder.

What there to wonder, as it turns out dads are far better at looking after
children, and that plain to see.

Even when, the father spends a lot of time with the child on a regular
basis, it turn out, more mothers today are still killing their children.

I have seen a huge increase in the last ten years of women killing their
children overall, compaired to fathers, and I think and I belive it's
because of this radical feminist crap in today's society where men are
blamed for everything including women killing their children.

You can not claim, just because men don't get custody of their kids all that
often, it might be different. both men and women are vastly different in
their chemical make up and women are prone more so to medical problems.

Even in the feminist court where Judges are giving bad mothers more often
and I'm talking about, druggy junkies, hookers, and the list is huge.

The feminist courts do not care about the child, as there reasoning is, just
let the mothers have the kids anyhow.

Part of the other problem is the government response on violence, jail men,
let women go, as it is not politically correct to really jail women, mother
to the fullest like they do men and women are not responsible for their
actions attitude by the courts, so in the end they are not given all that
much time in jail for their crimes.

Radical feminists, however, while embracing this mainstream goal--even
hiding behind it--go much further: They seek to undermine the nuclear family
of married father, mother, and children, which they label the "patriarchal
family." As feminist leader Betty Friedan has warned, this anti-marriage
agenda places radical feminists profoundly at odds with the family
aspirations of mainstream feminists and most other American women.

Behind the Lace Curtain

Among those who argue that the Lace Curtain exists, no issue is cited more
frequently than the media's coverage of domestic violence. While this is not
the appropriate forum in which to debate the true extent of the problem of
battered men, suffice it to say that even advocates for battered women admit
that some men are beaten by their female partners, and that not all
female-on-male assaults are in self-defense. It is, of course, impossible to
agree on the exact percentage of victims of unprovoked domestic assaults who
are men, but for the sake of discussion, let's use 10%--a number admitted to
by even the most skeptical women's advocacy groups. The question, then, is
whether battered men and violent women are getting their "fair share" of
media coverage.

According to Laura Flanders, "they're getting too much. There have been
op-ed articles on the subject in the Los Angeles Times and USA Today."
Besides op-ed articles, however, there has been virtually no coverage of
male victims of domestic violence. A computer search of over two million
articles appearing in the nation's largest newspapers revealed 112 that
focused on battered women. Only one focused on battered men. A similar
search of over 1,500,000 magazine and journal articles located 203 on
battered women and, again, only one on battered men.

When Kim Gandy, executive vice-president of NOW, was asked to comment on
this seeming disparity in coverage, she replied that perhaps "there should
be proportional coverage of domestic violence issues." (She wasn't, however,
able to say who would establish the correct proportions.) But Gandy's views
are hardly universally shared. "Talking about battered men simply detracts
from the real problem," says Laura Flanders. She and other women's advocates
fear that giving battered men even proportional coverage would jeopardize
the already pathetic amount of money available for women's shelters.

In some ways, it's almost possible to justify the media's reluctance to
adequately cover violent women. After all, it's only relatively recently
that the women's movement succeeded in getting the issue of domestic
violence against women out of the closet. (Advocates for battered men,
however, maintain that the issue of violence against men is still in the
closet.) The media, then, may be ignoring or minimizing men's victimization
in order to protect feminism's hard-fought gains.

This raises an interesting contradiction. On one hand, the media is quick to
condemn paternalism when it seeks to "protect" women from the pressures of
work outside the home, the public life of politics, or the dangers of
combat.. But when paternalism operates to judge women less harshly (or to
absolve them of responsibility for their behavior) in the name of
"protecting" past gains, the media sometimes seems to be far slower out of
the box. "If a politician made an outrageous statement, or if the concrete
lobby or the tobacco lobby said something that common sense told you was
crazy, we'd be all over them," says Bernard Goldberg, a correspondent with
CBS News. "But when it comes to people in groups that have an agenda to "do
good," it's considered bad form to challenge them."

An article on domestic violence in a recent issue of a national parenting
magazine illustrates this point perfectly. The author of the article made
reference to a 1992 letter by Surgeon General Antonia Novello, and quoted
her as having said that "one study found that domestic violence is the
leading cause of injury of women 15-44." In an attempt to maintain the
highest factual standards, most national magazines require writers to submit
backup for every statistic or quote used in an article--especially one on a
controversial topic. In this case, the magazine's fact-checkers routinely
should have asked to see Novello's letter. Had they done so, they would have
found that what Novello actually said was that "One study found violence to
be... the leading cause of injury to women ages 15 through 44 years."
Nowhere did she say "domestic violence," just violence. The study Novello
referred to was a study of extremely poor, crime-ridden, inner-city
African-American women in Philadelphia--a population not even vaguely
representative of the rest of the country. In a recent phone interview, Dr.
Jeane Ann Grisso, the study's lead researcher, cautioned that even if her
study had concluded that domestic violence was the leading cause of injury,
she would "never apply that conclusion to the total population of American
women."

Unfortunately, when inaccurate statements--such as those mentioned
above--are left unchallenged, they soon take on the status of "fact." In one
part of a recent "Eye-to-Eye With Connie Chung" segment, Bernard Goldberg
wanted to debunk an assertion by NOW president Patricia Ireland that
domestic violence was the number one cause of birth defects. (If you think
about it, does it really make sense that domestic violence could cause more
birth defects than crack? than alcohol abuse?, than car accidents?) But
rather that raise their eyebrows and check out Ireland's (non-existent)
sources, CBS's army of attorneys made Goldberg prove that Ireland was wrong.

This brings up the dueling paternalism contradiction raised above, but with
a dangerous twist. By allowing what are perceived to be "pro-women" stories
to use lower standards for truth and accuracy, the stage is set for a
backlash against all "pro-women" data, which may be treated as suspect out
of fear that the research methods that produced it were motivated more by
politics than by science.

But paternalism is not the only explanation for why coverage of female
violence and male victims of that violence is suppressed. Some writers who
might otherwise be interested in seriously investigating the issue are
simply afraid to do so.

Take, for example, the experiences of Erin Pizzey, a lifelong advocate for
battered women who opened England's first shelter over twenty years ago.
Pizzey's involvement with battered women apparently gave her a rare insight
into women's capacity for violence, a topic she discussed in her book, Prone
to Violence. In an interview with British journalist David Thomas, Pizzey
describes the threats on her life and bomb scares at her house that began to
happen after the book was published. "I finally decided that I couldn't take
any more of that intimidation, not for my sake, because I'm used to it, but
for my children's sake," she said. "So we went abroad."

Suzanne Steinmetz, one of the first American researchers to document
female-on-male domestic violence, had similar experiences. Dr. Steinmetz
told me that after she published an article called "The Battered Husband
Syndrome," she received verbal threats and anonymous phone calls from
radical women's groups threatening to harm her children. In addition, all of
her female colleagues were contacted and told to "do everything possible to
deny" Steinmetz tenure. And when the ACLU invited her to speak on domestic
violence, it received a bomb threat. Both Steinmetz and Pizzey found it
ironic that the same people who claim that women-initiated violence is
purely self-defense are so quick to threaten violence against people who
disagree.

Fortunately, as David Thomas notes, few researchers have "stirred up the
kind of hostility" that Pizzey and Steinmetz have provoked. Nevertheless, he
writes, "anyone arguing against the view that women can only be seen as
innocent victims can expect, at the very least, trenchant criticism."

Some argue that, besides protecting women by punishing their critics, the
Lace Curtain attempts to protect women by silencing their critics before
they even have a chance to criticize. In an extensive analysis of bias at
the New York Times Book Review, John Ellis, literary editor of Heterodoxy,
claims that pro-feminist books are "protected by assigning them to
ideological clones of their author," thus protecting them from negative
attack. "How do you ensure a respectful review of feminist eminence Gloria
Steinem's Revolution From Within? Since Steinem is the former editor of Ms.,
the book goes to Dierdre English, former editor of Mother Jones: a close
match. Susan Faludi's Backlash is the work of a journalist with a sour view
of any criticism of feminism, so let's find another like her: the equally
sour Ellen Goodman." Others within the media have also noted a corollary
trend: books by those who criticize feminism or who write favorably about
men seem to be given either highly negative reviews (Christina Hoff Sommers'
Who Stole Feminism) or not reviewed at all (Jack Kammer's Good Will Toward
Men, and Warren Farrell's The Myth of Male Power, for example.)

http://users.erols.com/jkammer/nieman.html
--



> Children of break-ups 'safer with their dads'
> Phil Bartsch
> 05sep03
> A FEDERAL parliamentary inquiry into child custody arrangements was told
> yesterday that children were safer living with their biological fathers.
>
> Co-founder of the controversial Men's Rights Agency, Sue Price, told the
> inquiry despite the "maternal preference" of the Family Law Court in
> custody battles, statistics showed children were more likely to be
> abused, or even killed, when in the custody of their mothers.
>
> "The research shows children are safer with their biological fathers,"
> she said.
>
> An Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report had found 42 per
> cent of substantiated abuse - including physical, emotional and sexual
> abuse - happened in single-female-parent families, she said.
>
> The report said only 4 per cent of abuse occurred in single-male-parent
> families.
>
> Mrs Price also said mothers had been identified as the primary
> suspect/perpetrator in 25 of 40 deaths deemed "family" murders in NSW
> between 1996 and 1999.
>
> The studies exposed the myth that most child abuse was perpetrated "by
> all these violent men out there".
>
> In her submission to the inquiry on the Gold Coast yesterday morning,
> Mrs Price said men were often the victims of false allegations in the
> Family Law Court where there was "very little testing of evidence and no
> penalties of perjury".
>
> But she claimed as many women as men supported changes to child custody
> arrangements in favour of shared parenting.
>
> She also called on parental rights to be reinstated into the Family Law
> Act.
>
> "Shared parenting is much better for children," she said.
>
> "Where you've got two perfectly decent parents why should a court be
> saying to either of those parents that they can't see their children or
> restricting the time they have with them.
>
> "We hope that, if they bring this in, families will then make their own
> arrangements to see their children as much as possible."
>
> Mrs Price claimed parental rights had been removed from the Act in the
> mid-'90s "leaving the Family Court as the sole arbiter of what happens
> to children".
>
> The inquiry was also told of a growing number of children being cared
> for full-time by grandparents and other relatives.
>
> "This new kind of family group is becoming more and more common in our
> society and therefore needs to be given serious consideration when new
> laws and policies for families are being drafted," Kincare spokeswoman
> Maree Lubach said.
>
> Ms Lubach said recognition and legal rights for custodial grandparents
> in the Family Law Court was needed to ensure the welfare of the
> children.

[...8MM..]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> Saw this in another group and thought it would be of interest here. I
> especially like how this group is labeled "controversial". I guess
> you're controversial when you're telling people things they don't want
> to hear.
>
> I do have a question that maybe someone can answer. 25 out of 40
> deaths were caused by the mothers, which sounds bad for mothers. What
> would that translate into as a percentage of single-mother households
> vs single-father households. For example, many people like to point
> out that there are far more whites on welfare than blacks, but it's a
> deceiving statistic because blacks are a relatively small minority of
> the overall population and the reality is that a much higher percentage
> of the black population is on welfare than the percentage of the white
> population. Either side can point to numbers in an attempt to sway the
> ignorant, while conveniently leaving out the whole story. I wonder if
> the same thing is occurring here. Since men get full custody far less
> often, I have to wonder.

What there to wonder, as it turns out dads are far better at looking after
children, and that plain to see.

Even when, the father spends a lot of time with the child on a regular
basis, it turn out, more mothers today are still killing their children.

I have seen a huge increase in the last ten years of women killing their
children overall, compaired to fathers, and I think and I belive it's
because of this radical feminist crap in today's society where men are
blamed for everything including women killing their children.

You can not claim, just because men don't get custody of their kids all that
often, it might be different. both men and women are vastly different in
their chemical make up and women are prone more so to medical problems.

Even in the feminist court where Judges are giving bad mothers more often
and I'm talking about, druggy junkies, hookers, and the list is huge.

The feminist courts do not care about the child, as there reasoning is, just
let the mothers have the kids anyhow.

Part of the other problem is the government response on violence, jail men,
let women go, as it is not politically correct to really jail women, mother
to the fullest like they do men and women are not responsible for their
actions attitude by the courts, so in the end they are not given all that
much time in jail for their crimes.

Radical feminists, however, while embracing this mainstream goal--even
hiding behind it--go much further: They seek to undermine the nuclear family
of married father, mother, and children, which they label the "patriarchal
family." As feminist leader Betty Friedan has warned, this anti-marriage
agenda places radical feminists profoundly at odds with the family
aspirations of mainstream feminists and most other American women.

Behind the Lace Curtain

Among those who argue that the Lace Curtain exists, no issue is cited more
frequently than the media's coverage of domestic violence. While this is not
the appropriate forum in which to debate the true extent of the problem of
battered men, suffice it to say that even advocates for battered women admit
that some men are beaten by their female partners, and that not all
female-on-male assaults are in self-defense. It is, of course, impossible to
agree on the exact percentage of victims of unprovoked domestic assaults who
are men, but for the sake of discussion, let's use 10%--a number admitted to
by even the most skeptical women's advocacy groups. The question, then, is
whether battered men and violent women are getting their "fair share" of
media coverage.

According to Laura Flanders, "they're getting too much. There have been
op-ed articles on the subject in the Los Angeles Times and USA Today."
Besides op-ed articles, however, there has been virtually no coverage of
male victims of domestic violence. A computer search of over two million
articles appearing in the nation's largest newspapers revealed 112 that
focused on battered women. Only one focused on battered men. A similar
search of over 1,500,000 magazine and journal articles located 203 on
battered women and, again, only one on battered men.

When Kim Gandy, executive vice-president of NOW, was asked to comment on
this seeming disparity in coverage, she replied that perhaps "there should
be proportional coverage of domestic violence issues." (She wasn't, however,
able to say who would establish the correct proportions.) But Gandy's views
are hardly universally shared. "Talking about battered men simply detracts
from the real problem," says Laura Flanders. She and other women's advocates
fear that giving battered men even proportional coverage would jeopardize
the already pathetic amount of money available for women's shelters.

In some ways, it's almost possible to justify the media's reluctance to
adequately cover violent women. After all, it's only relatively recently
that the women's movement succeeded in getting the issue of domestic
violence against women out of the closet. (Advocates for battered men,
however, maintain that the issue of violence against men is still in the
closet.) The media, then, may be ignoring or minimizing men's victimization
in order to protect feminism's hard-fought gains.

This raises an interesting contradiction. On one hand, the media is quick to
condemn paternalism when it seeks to "protect" women from the pressures of
work outside the home, the public life of politics, or the dangers of
combat.. But when paternalism operates to judge women less harshly (or to
absolve them of responsibility for their behavior) in the name of
"protecting" past gains, the media sometimes seems to be far slower out of
the box. "If a politician made an outrageous statement, or if the concrete
lobby or the tobacco lobby said something that common sense told you was
crazy, we'd be all over them," says Bernard Goldberg, a correspondent with
CBS News. "But when it comes to people in groups that have an agenda to "do
good," it's considered bad form to challenge them."

An article on domestic violence in a recent issue of a national parenting
magazine illustrates this point perfectly. The author of the article made
reference to a 1992 letter by Surgeon General Antonia Novello, and quoted
her as having said that "one study found that domestic violence is the
leading cause of injury of women 15-44." In an attempt to maintain the
highest factual standards, most national magazines require writers to submit
backup for every statistic or quote used in an article--especially one on a
controversial topic. In this case, the magazine's fact-checkers routinely
should have asked to see Novello's letter. Had they done so, they would have
found that what Novello actually said was that "One study found violence to
be... the leading cause of injury to women ages 15 through 44 years."
Nowhere did she say "domestic violence," just violence. The study Novello
referred to was a study of extremely poor, crime-ridden, inner-city
African-American women in Philadelphia--a population not even vaguely
representative of the rest of the country. In a recent phone interview, Dr.
Jeane Ann Grisso, the study's lead researcher, cautioned that even if her
study had concluded that domestic violence was the leading cause of injury,
she would "never apply that conclusion to the total population of American
women."

Unfortunately, when inaccurate statements--such as those mentioned
above--are left unchallenged, they soon take on the status of "fact." In one
part of a recent "Eye-to-Eye With Connie Chung" segment, Bernard Goldberg
wanted to debunk an assertion by NOW president Patricia Ireland that
domestic violence was the number one cause of birth defects. (If you think
about it, does it really make sense that domestic violence could cause more
birth defects than crack? than alcohol abuse?, than car accidents?) But
rather that raise their eyebrows and check out Ireland's (non-existent)
sources, CBS's army of attorneys made Goldberg prove that Ireland was wrong.

This brings up the dueling paternalism contradiction raised above, but with
a dangerous twist. By allowing what are perceived to be "pro-women" stories
to use lower standards for truth and accuracy, the stage is set for a
backlash against all "pro-women" data, which may be treated as suspect out
of fear that the research methods that produced it were motivated more by
politics than by science.

But paternalism is not the only explanation for why coverage of female
violence and male victims of that violence is suppressed. Some writers who
might otherwise be interested in seriously investigating the issue are
simply afraid to do so.

Take, for example, the experiences of Erin Pizzey, a lifelong advocate for
battered women who opened England's first shelter over twenty years ago.
Pizzey's involvement with battered women apparently gave her a rare insight
into women's capacity for violence, a topic she discussed in her book, Prone
to Violence. In an interview with British journalist David Thomas, Pizzey
describes the threats on her life and bomb scares at her house that began to
happen after the book was published. "I finally decided that I couldn't take
any more of that intimidation, not for my sake, because I'm used to it, but
for my children's sake," she said. "So we went abroad."

Suzanne Steinmetz, one of the first American researchers to document
female-on-male domestic violence, had similar experiences. Dr. Steinmetz
told me that after she published an article called "The Battered Husband
Syndrome," she received verbal threats and anonymous phone calls from
radical women's groups threatening to harm her children. In addition, all of
her female colleagues were contacted and told to "do everything possible to
deny" Steinmetz tenure. And when the ACLU invited her to speak on domestic
violence, it received a bomb threat. Both Steinmetz and Pizzey found it
ironic that the same people who claim that women-initiated violence is
purely self-defense are so quick to threaten violence against people who
disagree.

Fortunately, as David Thomas notes, few researchers have "stirred up the
kind of hostility" that Pizzey and Steinmetz have provoked. Nevertheless, he
writes, "anyone arguing against the view that women can only be seen as
innocent victims can expect, at the very least, trenchant criticism."

Some argue that, besides protecting women by punishing their critics, the
Lace Curtain attempts to protect women by silencing their critics before
they even have a chance to criticize. In an extensive analysis of bias at
the New York Times Book Review, John Ellis, literary editor of Heterodoxy,
claims that pro-feminist books are "protected by assigning them to
ideological clones of their author," thus protecting them from negative
attack. "How do you ensure a respectful review of feminist eminence Gloria
Steinem's Revolution From Within? Since Steinem is the former editor of Ms.,
the book goes to Dierdre English, former editor of Mother Jones: a close
match. Susan Faludi's Backlash is the work of a journalist with a sour view
of any criticism of feminism, so let's find another like her: the equally
sour Ellen Goodman." Others within the media have also noted a corollary
trend: books by those who criticize feminism or who write favorably about
men seem to be given either highly negative reviews (Christina Hoff Sommers'
Who Stole Feminism) or not reviewed at all (Jack Kammer's Good Will Toward
Men, and Warren Farrell's The Myth of Male Power, for example.)

http://users.erols.com/jkammer/nieman.html
--



> Children of break-ups 'safer with their dads'
> Phil Bartsch
> 05sep03
> A FEDERAL parliamentary inquiry into child custody arrangements was told
> yesterday that children were safer living with their biological fathers.
>
> Co-founder of the controversial Men's Rights Agency, Sue Price, told the
> inquiry despite the "maternal preference" of the Family Law Court in
> custody battles, statistics showed children were more likely to be
> abused, or even killed, when in the custody of their mothers.
>
> "The research shows children are safer with their biological fathers,"
> she said.
>
> An Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report had found 42 per
> cent of substantiated abuse - including physical, emotional and sexual
> abuse - happened in single-female-parent families, she said.
>
> The report said only 4 per cent of abuse occurred in single-male-parent
> families.
>
> Mrs Price also said mothers had been identified as the primary
> suspect/perpetrator in 25 of 40 deaths deemed "family" murders in NSW
> between 1996 and 1999.
>
> The studies exposed the myth that most child abuse was perpetrated "by
> all these violent men out there".
>
> In her submission to the inquiry on the Gold Coast yesterday morning,
> Mrs Price said men were often the victims of false allegations in the
> Family Law Court where there was "very little testing of evidence and no
> penalties of perjury".
>
> But she claimed as many women as men supported changes to child custody
> arrangements in favour of shared parenting.
>
> She also called on parental rights to be reinstated into the Family Law
> Act.
>
> "Shared parenting is much better for children," she said.
>
> "Where you've got two perfectly decent parents why should a court be
> saying to either of those parents that they can't see their children or
> restricting the time they have with them.
>
> "We hope that, if they bring this in, families will then make their own
> arrangements to see their children as much as possible."
>
> Mrs Price claimed parental rights had been removed from the Act in the
> mid-'90s "leaving the Family Court as the sole arbiter of what happens
> to children".
>
> The inquiry was also told of a growing number of children being cared
> for full-time by grandparents and other relatives.
>
> "This new kind of family group is becoming more and more common in our
> society and therefore needs to be given serious consideration when new
> laws and policies for families are being drafted," Kincare spokeswoman
> Maree Lubach said.
>
> Ms Lubach said recognition and legal rights for custodial grandparents
> in the Family Law Court was needed to ensure the welfare of the
> children.

[The Dave©]

> ...8MM.. wrote:
> What there to wonder, as it turns out dads are far better at looking
> after children, and that plain to see.

That's my question, is it really so, or is it just a half-truth to
promote a particular point of view. A point of view that I believe
needs to be addressed fairly, by the way. If I can be convinced it's
more than half-truth, I want to use it in my discussions with people,
but I want the confidence to know that it is true through and through.

> Even when, the father spends a lot of time with the child on a regular
> basis, it turn out, more mothers today are still killing their
> children.

Raw numbers, or percentages? For example, if there were 25 children
killed by 3,000 single mothers, that's 0.83%, and if there's only 15
children killed by 500 single fathers, that's 3.0%. That's what I'm
trying to get at. In things like this, I think poercentage tell more
of the real story, so I distrust raw numbers. Raw numbers make me
think the person using them is trying to hide something.

I'm sure there's even other factors never mentioned, such as which one
has primary custody, how much costody, how many of those kids in total
have access to both parents vs. those that have access to only one,
etc., that would cloud the issue even further.

> I have seen a huge increase in the last ten years of women killing
> their children overall, compaired to fathers, and I think and I
> belive it's because of this radical feminist crap in today's society
> where men are blamed for everything including women killing their
> children.

<remainder snipped for brevity>

[The Dave©]

> ...8MM.. wrote:
> What there to wonder, as it turns out dads are far better at looking
> after children, and that plain to see.

That's my question, is it really so, or is it just a half-truth to
promote a particular point of view. A point of view that I believe
needs to be addressed fairly, by the way. If I can be convinced it's
more than half-truth, I want to use it in my discussions with people,
but I want the confidence to know that it is true through and through.

> Even when, the father spends a lot of time with the child on a regular
> basis, it turn out, more mothers today are still killing their
> children.

Raw numbers, or percentages? For example, if there were 25 children
killed by 3,000 single mothers, that's 0.83%, and if there's only 15
children killed by 500 single fathers, that's 3.0%. That's what I'm
trying to get at. In things like this, I think poercentage tell more
of the real story, so I distrust raw numbers. Raw numbers make me
think the person using them is trying to hide something.

I'm sure there's even other factors never mentioned, such as which one
has primary custody, how much costody, how many of those kids in total
have access to both parents vs. those that have access to only one,
etc., that would cloud the issue even further.

> I have seen a huge increase in the last ten years of women killing
> their children overall, compaired to fathers, and I think and I
> belive it's because of this radical feminist crap in today's society
> where men are blamed for everything including women killing their
> children.

<remainder snipped for brevity>

[...8MM..]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message ...
> > ...8MM.. wrote:
> > What there to wonder, as it turns out dads are far better at looking
> > after children, and that plain to see.
>
> That's my question, is it really so, or is it just a half-truth to
> promote a particular point of view. A point of view that I believe
> needs to be addressed fairly, by the way. If I can be convinced it's
> more than half-truth, I want to use it in my discussions with people,
> but I want the confidence to know that it is true through and through.
>
> > Even when, the father spends a lot of time with the child on a regular
> > basis, it turn out, more mothers today are still killing their
> > children.
>
> Raw numbers, or percentages? For example, if there were 25 children
> killed by 3,000 single mothers, that's 0.83%, and if there's only 15
> children killed by 500 single fathers, that's 3.0%. That's what I'm
> trying to get at. In things like this, I think poercentage tell more
> of the real story, so I distrust raw numbers. Raw numbers make me
> think the person using them is trying to hide something.

Dave, numbers game
Subject: Child abuse and neglect -- U.S. data
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/ncands97/s7.htm

7.1 Relationship of Perpetrators to Victims (SDC)
Based on data from 39 States, 401,598 perpetrators (75.4 percent) were victims' parents, and 54,573 (10.2 percent) were other relatives; 9,646 perpetrators (1.8 percent) were people in other caretaking relationships (e.g., foster parents, facility staff, and child care providers); and 66,915 perpetrators (12.6 percent) were non-caretakers or had an "unknown" relationship with the victim.

N=532,732 victims in 39 States.

7.2 Age and Sex of Perpetrators (DCDC)

DCDC data reveal that 184,152 perpetrators (62.3 percent) were female, and 111,473 (37.7 percent) were male (table 7-1). Perpetrators tended to be young, with 237,865 (80.5 percent) younger than 40 years old. Of the perpetrators, 122,569 (41.5 percent) were between 30 and 39 years old, the most frequent age category. Only 16,441 perpetrators (5.6 percent) were 50 years old or older, the least frequent age category.

Table 7-1 Perpetrators by Sex and Age (DCDC)

Age
Sex
Total

Male
Female

19 years or younger
Count
9,177
9,882
19,059


% within Age
48.2%
51.8%
100.0%


% within Sex
8.2%
5.4%
6.4%

20 to 29 years old
Count
26,646
69,591
96,237


% within Age
27.7%
72.3%
100.0%


% within Sex
23.9%
37.8%
32.6%

30 to 39 years old
Count
45,958
76,611
122,569


% within Age
37.5%
62.5%
100.0%


% within Sex
41.2%
41.6%
41.5%

40 to 49 years old
Count
21,258
20,061
41,319


% within Age
51.4%
48.6%
100.0%


% within Sex
19.1%
10.9%
14.0%

50 years old or older
Count
8,434
8,007
16,441


% within Age
51.3%
48.7%
100.0%


% within Sex
7.6%
4.3%
5.6%

Total
Count
111,473
184,152
295,625


% within Age
37.7%
62.3%
100.0%


% within Sex
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%


Table 7-2 Type of Maltreatment by Sex of Perpetrator (DCDC)

Type of Maltreatment
Perpetrator Sex
Total

Male
Female

Physical Abuse
Count
18,960
20,115
39,075


% within Type of Maltreatment
48.5%
51.5%
100.0%


% within Sex
17.5%
12.0%
14.1%

Neglect
Count
29,587
83,769
113,356


% within Type of Maltreatment
26.1%
73.9%
100.0%


% within Sex
27.4%
49.8%
41.0%

Medical Neglect
Count
1,035
4,716
5,751


% within Type of Maltreatment
18.0%
82.0%
100.0%


% within Sex
1.0%
2.8%
2.1%

Sexual Abuse
Count
15,606
5,453
21,059


% within Type of Maltreatment
74.1%
25.9%
100.0%


% within Sex
14.4%
3.2%
7.6%

Psychological Abuse
Count
6,540
7,005
13,545


% within Type of Maltreatment
48.3%
51.7%
100.0%


% within Sex
6.0%
4.2%
4.9%

Other Abuse
Count
14,511
18,355
32,866


% within Type of Maltreatment
44.2%
55.8%
100.0%


% within Sex
13.4%
10.9%
11.9%

Multiple Maltreatments
Count
21,881
28,888
50,769


% within Type of Maltreatment
43.1%
56.9%
100.0%


% within Sex
20.2%
17.2%
18.4%

Total
Count
108,120
168,301
276,421


% within Type of Maltreatment
39.1%
60.9%
100.0%


% within Sex
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%


Table 7-3 Perpetrators of Child Fatalities by Sex and Age (DCDC)

Fatality Perpetrator Age
Perpetrator Sex
Total

Male
Female

19 years or younger
Count
15
30
45


% within Age
33.3%
66.7%
100.0%


% within Sex
11.6%
13.8%
13.0%

20 to 29 years old
Count
63
127
190


% within Age
33.2%
66.8%
100.0%


% within Sex
48.8%
58.3%
54.8%

30 to 39 years old
Count
26
30
56


% within Age
46.4%
53.6%
100.0%


% within Sex
20.2%
13.8%
16.1%

40 to 49 years old
Count
20
16
36


% within Age
55.6%
44.4%
100.0%


% within Sex
15.5%
7.3%
10.4%

50 years old or older
Count
5
15
20


% within Age
25.0%
75.0%
100.0%


% within Sex
3.9%
6.9%
5.8%

Total
Count
129
218
347


% within Age
37.2%
62.8%
100.0%


% within Sex
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%







>
> I'm sure there's even other factors never mentioned, such as which one
> has primary custody, how much costody, how many of those kids in total
> have access to both parents vs. those that have access to only one,
> etc., that would cloud the issue even further.
>
> > I have seen a huge increase in the last ten years of women killing
> > their children overall, compaired to fathers, and I think and I
> > belive it's because of this radical feminist crap in today's society
> > where men are blamed for everything including women killing their
> > children.
>
> <remainder snipped for brevity>

[...8MM..]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message ...
> > ...8MM.. wrote:
> > What there to wonder, as it turns out dads are far better at looking
> > after children, and that plain to see.
>
> That's my question, is it really so, or is it just a half-truth to
> promote a particular point of view. A point of view that I believe
> needs to be addressed fairly, by the way. If I can be convinced it's
> more than half-truth, I want to use it in my discussions with people,
> but I want the confidence to know that it is true through and through.
>
> > Even when, the father spends a lot of time with the child on a regular
> > basis, it turn out, more mothers today are still killing their
> > children.
>
> Raw numbers, or percentages? For example, if there were 25 children
> killed by 3,000 single mothers, that's 0.83%, and if there's only 15
> children killed by 500 single fathers, that's 3.0%. That's what I'm
> trying to get at. In things like this, I think poercentage tell more
> of the real story, so I distrust raw numbers. Raw numbers make me
> think the person using them is trying to hide something.

Dave, numbers game
Subject: Child abuse and neglect -- U.S. data
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/ncands97/s7.htm

7.1 Relationship of Perpetrators to Victims (SDC)
Based on data from 39 States, 401,598 perpetrators (75.4 percent) were victims' parents, and 54,573 (10.2 percent) were other relatives; 9,646 perpetrators (1.8 percent) were people in other caretaking relationships (e.g., foster parents, facility staff, and child care providers); and 66,915 perpetrators (12.6 percent) were non-caretakers or had an "unknown" relationship with the victim.

N=532,732 victims in 39 States.

7.2 Age and Sex of Perpetrators (DCDC)

DCDC data reveal that 184,152 perpetrators (62.3 percent) were female, and 111,473 (37.7 percent) were male (table 7-1). Perpetrators tended to be young, with 237,865 (80.5 percent) younger than 40 years old. Of the perpetrators, 122,569 (41.5 percent) were between 30 and 39 years old, the most frequent age category. Only 16,441 perpetrators (5.6 percent) were 50 years old or older, the least frequent age category.

Table 7-1 Perpetrators by Sex and Age (DCDC)

Age
Sex
Total

Male
Female

19 years or younger
Count
9,177
9,882
19,059


% within Age
48.2%
51.8%
100.0%


% within Sex
8.2%
5.4%
6.4%

20 to 29 years old
Count
26,646
69,591
96,237


% within Age
27.7%
72.3%
100.0%


% within Sex
23.9%
37.8%
32.6%

30 to 39 years old
Count
45,958
76,611
122,569


% within Age
37.5%
62.5%
100.0%


% within Sex
41.2%
41.6%
41.5%

40 to 49 years old
Count
21,258
20,061
41,319


% within Age
51.4%
48.6%
100.0%


% within Sex
19.1%
10.9%
14.0%

50 years old or older
Count
8,434
8,007
16,441


% within Age
51.3%
48.7%
100.0%


% within Sex
7.6%
4.3%
5.6%

Total
Count
111,473
184,152
295,625


% within Age
37.7%
62.3%
100.0%


% within Sex
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%


Table 7-2 Type of Maltreatment by Sex of Perpetrator (DCDC)

Type of Maltreatment
Perpetrator Sex
Total

Male
Female

Physical Abuse
Count
18,960
20,115
39,075


% within Type of Maltreatment
48.5%
51.5%
100.0%


% within Sex
17.5%
12.0%
14.1%

Neglect
Count
29,587
83,769
113,356


% within Type of Maltreatment
26.1%
73.9%
100.0%


% within Sex
27.4%
49.8%
41.0%

Medical Neglect
Count
1,035
4,716
5,751


% within Type of Maltreatment
18.0%
82.0%
100.0%


% within Sex
1.0%
2.8%
2.1%

Sexual Abuse
Count
15,606
5,453
21,059


% within Type of Maltreatment
74.1%
25.9%
100.0%


% within Sex
14.4%
3.2%
7.6%

Psychological Abuse
Count
6,540
7,005
13,545


% within Type of Maltreatment
48.3%
51.7%
100.0%


% within Sex
6.0%
4.2%
4.9%

Other Abuse
Count
14,511
18,355
32,866


% within Type of Maltreatment
44.2%
55.8%
100.0%


% within Sex
13.4%
10.9%
11.9%

Multiple Maltreatments
Count
21,881
28,888
50,769


% within Type of Maltreatment
43.1%
56.9%
100.0%


% within Sex
20.2%
17.2%
18.4%

Total
Count
108,120
168,301
276,421


% within Type of Maltreatment
39.1%
60.9%
100.0%


% within Sex
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%


Table 7-3 Perpetrators of Child Fatalities by Sex and Age (DCDC)

Fatality Perpetrator Age
Perpetrator Sex
Total

Male
Female

19 years or younger
Count
15
30
45


% within Age
33.3%
66.7%
100.0%


% within Sex
11.6%
13.8%
13.0%

20 to 29 years old
Count
63
127
190


% within Age
33.2%
66.8%
100.0%


% within Sex
48.8%
58.3%
54.8%

30 to 39 years old
Count
26
30
56


% within Age
46.4%
53.6%
100.0%


% within Sex
20.2%
13.8%
16.1%

40 to 49 years old
Count
20
16
36


% within Age
55.6%
44.4%
100.0%


% within Sex
15.5%
7.3%
10.4%

50 years old or older
Count
5
15
20


% within Age
25.0%
75.0%
100.0%


% within Sex
3.9%
6.9%
5.8%

Total
Count
129
218
347


% within Age
37.2%
62.8%
100.0%


% within Sex
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%







>
> I'm sure there's even other factors never mentioned, such as which one
> has primary custody, how much costody, how many of those kids in total
> have access to both parents vs. those that have access to only one,
> etc., that would cloud the issue even further.
>
> > I have seen a huge increase in the last ten years of women killing
> > their children overall, compaired to fathers, and I think and I
> > belive it's because of this radical feminist crap in today's society
> > where men are blamed for everything including women killing their
> > children.
>
> <remainder snipped for brevity>

[Chris]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> > ...8MM.. wrote:
> > What there to wonder, as it turns out dads are far better at looking
> > after children, and that plain to see.
>
> That's my question, is it really so, or is it just a half-truth to
> promote a particular point of view. A point of view that I believe
> needs to be addressed fairly, by the way. If I can be convinced it's
> more than half-truth, I want to use it in my discussions with people,
> but I want the confidence to know that it is true through and through.
>
> > Even when, the father spends a lot of time with the child on a regular
> > basis, it turn out, more mothers today are still killing their
> > children.
>
> Raw numbers, or percentages? For example, if there were 25 children
> killed by 3,000 single mothers, that's 0.83%, and if there's only 15
> children killed by 500 single fathers, that's 3.0%. That's what I'm
> trying to get at. In things like this, I think poercentage tell more
> of the real story, so I distrust raw numbers. Raw numbers make me
> think the person using them is trying to hide something.
>
> I'm sure there's even other factors never mentioned, such as which one
> has primary custody, how much costody, how many of those kids in total
> have access to both parents vs. those that have access to only one,
> etc., that would cloud the issue even further.

Why does it matter WHAT the numbers are? The fact is that the kourts hand
the children over to the mother because the father is a danger to them....
period!

>
> > I have seen a huge increase in the last ten years of women killing
> > their children overall, compaired to fathers, and I think and I
> > belive it's because of this radical feminist crap in today's society
> > where men are blamed for everything including women killing their
> > children.
>
> <remainder snipped for brevity>

[Chris]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> > ...8MM.. wrote:
> > What there to wonder, as it turns out dads are far better at looking
> > after children, and that plain to see.
>
> That's my question, is it really so, or is it just a half-truth to
> promote a particular point of view. A point of view that I believe
> needs to be addressed fairly, by the way. If I can be convinced it's
> more than half-truth, I want to use it in my discussions with people,
> but I want the confidence to know that it is true through and through.
>
> > Even when, the father spends a lot of time with the child on a regular
> > basis, it turn out, more mothers today are still killing their
> > children.
>
> Raw numbers, or percentages? For example, if there were 25 children
> killed by 3,000 single mothers, that's 0.83%, and if there's only 15
> children killed by 500 single fathers, that's 3.0%. That's what I'm
> trying to get at. In things like this, I think poercentage tell more
> of the real story, so I distrust raw numbers. Raw numbers make me
> think the person using them is trying to hide something.
>
> I'm sure there's even other factors never mentioned, such as which one
> has primary custody, how much costody, how many of those kids in total
> have access to both parents vs. those that have access to only one,
> etc., that would cloud the issue even further.

Why does it matter WHAT the numbers are? The fact is that the kourts hand
the children over to the mother because the father is a danger to them....
period!

>
> > I have seen a huge increase in the last ten years of women killing
> > their children overall, compaired to fathers, and I think and I
> > belive it's because of this radical feminist crap in today's society
> > where men are blamed for everything including women killing their
> > children.
>
> <remainder snipped for brevity>

[Freedom]

The truth? I would have to say the government, the legislatures and the
profit minded, sick, evil lawyers who advise (and makeup) the legislative
committees. They created the "battle system" in the first place.


"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> Saw this in another group and thought it would be of interest here. I
> especially like how this group is labeled "controversial". I guess
> you're controversial when you're telling people things they don't want
> to hear.
>
> I do have a question that maybe someone can answer. 25 out of 40
> deaths were caused by the mothers, which sounds bad for mothers. What
> would that translate into as a percentage of single-mother households
> vs single-father households. For example, many people like to point
> out that there are far more whites on welfare than blacks, but it's a
> deceiving statistic because blacks are a relatively small minority of
> the overall population and the reality is that a much higher percentage
> of the black population is on welfare than the percentage of the white
> population. Either side can point to numbers in an attempt to sway the
> ignorant, while conveniently leaving out the whole story. I wonder if
> the same thing is occurring here. Since men get full custody far less
> often, I have to wonder.
>
> -----------------
>
> http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,7168496%255E
> 953,00.html
> Children of break-ups 'safer with their dads'
> Phil Bartsch
> 05sep03
> A FEDERAL parliamentary inquiry into child custody arrangements was told
> yesterday that children were safer living with their biological fathers.
>
> Co-founder of the controversial Men's Rights Agency, Sue Price, told the
> inquiry despite the "maternal preference" of the Family Law Court in
> custody battles, statistics showed children were more likely to be
> abused, or even killed, when in the custody of their mothers.
>
> "The research shows children are safer with their biological fathers,"
> she said.
>
> An Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report had found 42 per
> cent of substantiated abuse - including physical, emotional and sexual
> abuse - happened in single-female-parent families, she said.
>
> The report said only 4 per cent of abuse occurred in single-male-parent
> families.
>
> Mrs Price also said mothers had been identified as the primary
> suspect/perpetrator in 25 of 40 deaths deemed "family" murders in NSW
> between 1996 and 1999.
>
> The studies exposed the myth that most child abuse was perpetrated "by
> all these violent men out there".
>
> In her submission to the inquiry on the Gold Coast yesterday morning,
> Mrs Price said men were often the victims of false allegations in the
> Family Law Court where there was "very little testing of evidence and no
> penalties of perjury".
>
> But she claimed as many women as men supported changes to child custody
> arrangements in favour of shared parenting.
>
> She also called on parental rights to be reinstated into the Family Law
> Act.
>
> "Shared parenting is much better for children," she said.
>
> "Where you've got two perfectly decent parents why should a court be
> saying to either of those parents that they can't see their children or
> restricting the time they have with them.
>
> "We hope that, if they bring this in, families will then make their own
> arrangements to see their children as much as possible."
>
> Mrs Price claimed parental rights had been removed from the Act in the
> mid-'90s "leaving the Family Court as the sole arbiter of what happens
> to children".
>
> The inquiry was also told of a growing number of children being cared
> for full-time by grandparents and other relatives.
>
> "This new kind of family group is becoming more and more common in our
> society and therefore needs to be given serious consideration when new
> laws and policies for families are being drafted," Kincare spokeswoman
> Maree Lubach said.
>
> Ms Lubach said recognition and legal rights for custodial grandparents
> in the Family Law Court was needed to ensure the welfare of the
> children.

[Freedom]

The truth? I would have to say the government, the legislatures and the
profit minded, sick, evil lawyers who advise (and makeup) the legislative
committees. They created the "battle system" in the first place.


"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> Saw this in another group and thought it would be of interest here. I
> especially like how this group is labeled "controversial". I guess
> you're controversial when you're telling people things they don't want
> to hear.
>
> I do have a question that maybe someone can answer. 25 out of 40
> deaths were caused by the mothers, which sounds bad for mothers. What
> would that translate into as a percentage of single-mother households
> vs single-father households. For example, many people like to point
> out that there are far more whites on welfare than blacks, but it's a
> deceiving statistic because blacks are a relatively small minority of
> the overall population and the reality is that a much higher percentage
> of the black population is on welfare than the percentage of the white
> population. Either side can point to numbers in an attempt to sway the
> ignorant, while conveniently leaving out the whole story. I wonder if
> the same thing is occurring here. Since men get full custody far less
> often, I have to wonder.
>
> -----------------
>
> http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,7168496%255E
> 953,00.html
> Children of break-ups 'safer with their dads'
> Phil Bartsch
> 05sep03
> A FEDERAL parliamentary inquiry into child custody arrangements was told
> yesterday that children were safer living with their biological fathers.
>
> Co-founder of the controversial Men's Rights Agency, Sue Price, told the
> inquiry despite the "maternal preference" of the Family Law Court in
> custody battles, statistics showed children were more likely to be
> abused, or even killed, when in the custody of their mothers.
>
> "The research shows children are safer with their biological fathers,"
> she said.
>
> An Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report had found 42 per
> cent of substantiated abuse - including physical, emotional and sexual
> abuse - happened in single-female-parent families, she said.
>
> The report said only 4 per cent of abuse occurred in single-male-parent
> families.
>
> Mrs Price also said mothers had been identified as the primary
> suspect/perpetrator in 25 of 40 deaths deemed "family" murders in NSW
> between 1996 and 1999.
>
> The studies exposed the myth that most child abuse was perpetrated "by
> all these violent men out there".
>
> In her submission to the inquiry on the Gold Coast yesterday morning,
> Mrs Price said men were often the victims of false allegations in the
> Family Law Court where there was "very little testing of evidence and no
> penalties of perjury".
>
> But she claimed as many women as men supported changes to child custody
> arrangements in favour of shared parenting.
>
> She also called on parental rights to be reinstated into the Family Law
> Act.
>
> "Shared parenting is much better for children," she said.
>
> "Where you've got two perfectly decent parents why should a court be
> saying to either of those parents that they can't see their children or
> restricting the time they have with them.
>
> "We hope that, if they bring this in, families will then make their own
> arrangements to see their children as much as possible."
>
> Mrs Price claimed parental rights had been removed from the Act in the
> mid-'90s "leaving the Family Court as the sole arbiter of what happens
> to children".
>
> The inquiry was also told of a growing number of children being cared
> for full-time by grandparents and other relatives.
>
> "This new kind of family group is becoming more and more common in our
> society and therefore needs to be given serious consideration when new
> laws and policies for families are being drafted," Kincare spokeswoman
> Maree Lubach said.
>
> Ms Lubach said recognition and legal rights for custodial grandparents
> in the Family Law Court was needed to ensure the welfare of the
> children.

[The Dave©]

> Chris wrote:
> Why does it matter WHAT the numbers are? The fact is that the kourts
> hand the children over to the mother because the father is a danger
> to them.... period!

Do you want to get the system changed, or what? If so, you have a much
better chance if the truth is on your side.

[The Dave©]

> Chris wrote:
> Why does it matter WHAT the numbers are? The fact is that the kourts
> hand the children over to the mother because the father is a danger
> to them.... period!

Do you want to get the system changed, or what? If so, you have a much
better chance if the truth is on your side.

[Chris]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> > Chris wrote:
> > Why does it matter WHAT the numbers are? The fact is that the kourts
> > hand the children over to the mother because the father is a danger
> > to them.... period!
>
> Do you want to get the system changed, or what? If so, you have a much
> better chance if the truth is on your side.

Truth is already on my side; or more aptly put, I am on the side of truth.

[Chris]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> > Chris wrote:
> > Why does it matter WHAT the numbers are? The fact is that the kourts
> > hand the children over to the mother because the father is a danger
> > to them.... period!
>
> Do you want to get the system changed, or what? If so, you have a much
> better chance if the truth is on your side.

Truth is already on my side; or more aptly put, I am on the side of truth.