that's some good judging there, Lou

Full text of the decision (new window, PDF!)

The facts to which the father admitted a plea of guilty to involved a video tape
which the father had filmed from web pages. The video tape was a recording
of various young girls, aged approximately 10 to 14 years, some were naked
and some were in bikinis, which the father had downloaded from child
pornographic web sites.

Well it sure is a good thing he won't be around any 10-14 year old girls anytime soon *facepalm*

Dr R interviewed both parents and the children; she observed the children with
the parents and interviewed the mother's present husband. Dr R concluded a
number of things about the father including:- 6
· The father engages the children in negative discussions about their
mother.
· There is a possibility that A may have received inappropriate sexual
attention from the father.
· That the children are at risk of psychological and emotional harm from
the father if he continues to engage with the children in inappropriate
conversations and questions.
· Some concerns about the mother influencing the children's feelings
towards the father.

66. Dr R formed the view, and I accept, that the father was likely to experience
poor impulse controls during times of high stress and high emotions. She bases
this upon his risk taking behaviours in the past such as his chronic marijuana
use and the downloading and copying of child pornography. Dr R says that this
is evident in other ways in terms of his communications with his children, A in
particular.
67. Dr R undertook psychological testing and concluded that the father suffers
from "symptoms

oh ffs, what the hell was the judge thinking.

The blocks spell Daddy...

Years ago when I slept over at a girl's house I discovered that she lived in a similar situation.

Couldn't believe that it was legal for a pedo to live with one of his victims. There was no way in hell I would've gone to that sleepover if I had known that the adult in charge was a convicted rapist. Despite the series of strong locks we still barricaded the door from the inside. Seemed like a good idea since the outside of the door looked like it had taken beatings in the past.

No kid should have to live like that.

lennavan: Judge Benjamin said that the father, who was convicted of downloading child pornography, must have an "adult friend" stay with him when the girls stayed overnight.

I bet the judge thought this was a good thing. Let's see, 2 girls and a pedo father who has to bring along a friend when they are around. Gee, I wonder what might happen next.

Yeah, it's not like it is possible to network with your fellow pedophiles on the internet, or have a friend who's a pedophile. If this judge has a daughter, we should let her stay with him overnight and see how he feels about it. This father is a threat to his daughters, particularly at night. They should not spend the night with him. It might even be damaging for them to spend any time with them.

What the fark? At first I read the headline and figured it was someone who had gotten drunk and peed in public, but then I read the article.

If I was the mother, I would say fark the law. I would grab the girls and run, and never look back.

/seriously, something is wrong with that judge too

Meanwhile, the poor bastard convicted of taking a piss in an alley during Marti Gras can't live 5 miles from a school.

gund

FTA...The Family Court found the father had invited one of the girls into his bed, and had "demonstrated affection toward her in a way that was, in all the circumstances, inappropriate for a child of that age".

penthesilea: Couldn't believe that it was legal for a pedo to live with one of his victims.

I can't believe that anyone inviting you into that situation with no warning is someone you'd consider a friend.

penthesilea: No kid should have to live like that.

so being a totalfark cyber-stalker, I of course checked out your profile.
where I found this gem

GaryPDX: You do know there's an ignore feature on Fark, right?
PC LOAD LETTER: I wish I could quit you.

I cried, I laughed do hard.
you are my fark hero of the week.

Evidently, based on reading the full text of the judge's "decision," a prior decision by some court or other is what the judge was "thinking" when he made his ruling:

The 'unacceptable risk' test is therefore the standard used by the Family Court to 'achieve a balance between the risk of detriment to the child from sexual abuse and the possibility of benefit to the child from parental access.'

I have never in my life seen or heard ANY judge or legal professional, even the most incest-denying freak, refer to damage by sexual abuse as a "detriment" to a child. This judge apparently feels--as do his Australian cronies--that it's preferable for children to spend time with their parents, even if one is an incestuous psycho whom they fear and despise, than protect them from a convicted pedophile.

Even the judge agreed the dad was probably a lying, manipulative scumbag (page 17, entries 71 - 75 et seq), but thought that his having a friend over, and the girls dressed would obviate the problem (p 31, 175).

But hey, if they survive this mess without committing suicide, they can always become hookers, right, Your Honor?