"In the wake of Serenity Scott-Dinnington's death, we examine the safety of children raised by men who are not their real fathers....
Some have gone as far as claiming that raising a child with its biological father "virtually guarantees the child won't die", but substitute the father for another man and you risk harm to the child.
Young men, rather than women, are over-represented in child abuse statistics, despite women usually being the primary carers..."
So- let's look at the actual figures:
"A report from the children's commissioner in 2009 showed of 57 under-five child homicide deaths from 1991-2000 the father was the perpetrator 18 times, the mother 14 times, and a defacto partner 25 times..."
18 dead kids equates to "virtually guarantees the child won't die" As opposed to 25 dead kids from the high risk group.
All I can draw from that statistically small sample is that there is an increased risk- but have you noticed something here?
There are only biological fathers and de-fecto's.
Do the random walk-ons count as de-factos? (who are also labeled stepfathers)
This is a damned gross slur on all the good men out there- and I know more than a few- that have stepped up to the unenviable task of taking on another blokes kids. In all the cases I know, they are doing a damned sight better job that the feckless deadbeat that abandoned his responsibilities.
Looking at the opening line:
"... raised by men who are not their real fathers...."
ARE they being raised by these pseudo-men?
I think not- they are just there to shag the mother and probably rort the welfare system.
They ain't in it primarily for the children- which you need to be to make raising a family work. And nor are so many of the 'Mothers'.