It'll be interesting to compare this case with the strikingly similar case of Arthur Freeman in Australia. Freeman, who was plainly having mental difficulties at the time, threw his daughter Darcey off a bridge in Melbourne, killing her. That tragedy was immediately seized on by anti-father advocates to attempt to repeal amendments to the Family Law Act that promote equally shared parenting. The theory seemed to be that, because Arthur Freeman apparently was, all fathers are dangerous to their children.
I wonder if the Stott-Smith logic will be used in this country to argue against mothers having equal parenting arrangements with fathers. Why do I doubt it?
First and foremost before I forget lets give the obligatory link for Fair Use Protection (I do not recommend visiting however). http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3780 There's your link guys :-)
Freeman had equal rights to his children despite several allegations of abuse. The facts are not all in on this case so don't be counting anything just quite yet. What this woman did was incomprehensible and EXTREMELY wrong - I want to clarify my position on that before some raving loon FR/MRA says I am supporting her.
And while I am at it, I wonder why in all these posts about all these bad moms (oh and there are literally thousands of them if you listen to these loons) why do they never mention an FR going off unless it is to give sympathy?