Sydney Morning Herald: Fathers kill their kids to get revenge – not because they’re upset with lack of time with them

I wish there were more articles with women’s points of views, especially in regard to Family Court. Seems we only hear from men on that front. Here’s one discussing fathers who kill their children (take a look at Dastardly Dad’s blog, linked to the right). It’s NOT because they’re upset about not spending enough time with them (as fathers rights guys proclaim) – it’s because they want to get revenge on the ex-wives, girlfriends. (Same fathers rights guys will claim women are vengeful and evil).

Men’s murderous revenge

It’s not angst over custody: fathers kill their children to punish their ex-partners.

Since Arthur Freeman was found guilty of murdering his four-year-old daughter, Darcey, much of the media focus has been on the distress of fathers going through separation and custody disputes. There has been a call for more support for fathers.

However, we must ask ourselves whether we are losing sight of the victims and, more importantly, whether this is the best approach to preventing these deaths from occurring in the future.

While the community understandably struggles to comprehend a parent killing a child, our research shows that these are not inexplicable tragedies. There is a particular type of filicide (the killing of children by parents) that occurs in the context of the separation of the parents.

In these ”spousal revenge” cases – as recognised by the Freeman jury – fathers kill their children to punish their ex-partners. There is usually no prior violence against the children. In fact, they appear to love their children. The act of killing is directed towards harming the child’s mother. The motive is revenge.

In the case of Freeman and Robert Farquharson (found guilty of three counts of murder of his sons Bailey, Tyler and Jai, aged two to 10, who drowned in a dam near Winchelsea), both fathers indicated that they wished to punish their ex-partner. Shortly before killing Darcey, Freeman told his ex-wife to say goodbye to her children and that she would never see them again – clearly to make her suffer. Farquharson told a friend that he would make his ex-wife suffer by taking what mattered to her most – her children.

Contrary to some claims, these cases are not about fathers losing access to their children. The reality is that in both cases, the fathers had access to their children and, in both cases, killed them during it.

2 comments on “Sydney Morning Herald: Fathers kill their kids to get revenge – not because they’re upset with lack of time with them

  1. jasmine says:


  2. Yeah, well, some men pick up women to help them get their children from the first relationship away from their mother, some because of child support issues — and some, simply because there’s a safety net for fathers, at least (USA) paid for by — the rest of USA.

    Have you heard about “Fathering Courts?” In fact, there are enough “fathering courts” (so much for the Bill of Rights…) that there was a “Fathering Courts Summit.” This is a wealth transfer scheme, one of many which i spossible when you have institutions such as the IRS and the politicians with connections.

    Here’s a link:

    Click to access Fathering_Court_Booklet_Final.pdf

    Don’t forget the Father Court Flowchart on page 9, showing the “partners” as, in order:

    | Judge, Court System.
    | District Attorney, Public Defender
    | Child Support Agencies
    | Community Supervision (probably an oblique reference to supervised visitation? ?)
    | Employment, Education, and recovery treatment providers
    | Other service providers as required.”

    (for “as required” read “ad infinitum”)
    Bet you didn’t know Dads had so many governmental friends. That is, so long as they share the wealth (federal funds). Many benefits to fathering courts include:

    (as rated by the fathers who participated…):

    “Here are some of the impressive, statistically significant family-strengthening results documented by evaluations from Fathering Court programs with pre- and post-participation data:
    ~ ~ ~ ~ Increased knowledge and skills for fathering9 ~ ~ ~ ~

    • Significant improvement in fathers’ sense of parental efficacy, as measured by an efficacy scale
    • Increased knowledge of child development (from 49% of dads rating their knowledge good-excellent before to 90% after)” and so forth…

    “Begun in Missouri in 1998 and later launched in Alabama, Iowa, Louisiana, Texas, and Washington, D.C., Fathering Court presents a powerful family-strengthening alternative to the prosecution and incarceration of men with significant child support arrearages.”

    it’s a real formula — Mom on TANF, pressure Dad for child support. Assign it reasonably or unreasonably, and do nothing til he runs up an arrears, including if this is in prison. Then he is a “captive audience” and can be extorted to participate in some kind of “how to be a man” class — in exchange for dropping prosecutions, lowering arrears, and in general, making the situation look better on paper. As well as lowering arrears, he can also get at times free legal help to prosecute Mama for more “access & visitation” time. Several high-profile cases in USA have featured murders or abductions during this access visitation time. Other times, it goes OK, but when the marriage has had abuse, this is just another way to get more contact with mother. Or put her into supervised visitation — another avenue for a “racket.” For example, this is what happened to Karen Anderson of California (of CPPA), to Genia Shockome, and others. In both those cases, fraud surfaced in use of those funds.

    Indeed, some think that a fathering court near every father in the country would help put a chicken in every pot, and who, knows, maybe even stop abuse?

    From the same site:

    “With a vision of a Fathering Court within reach of every father in the country, here are some steps the federal government can take to make that happen:

    • Through upcoming legislation that advances responsible fatherhood, provide dedicated funds for Fathering Court – its expansion, technical assistance for new courts, and support for a national learning network that advances the field and develops shared accountability

    • Under federal regulations, authorize reimbursement of Fathering Court expenses as a child support enforcement activity and reinvestment of incentive–based payment to states”

    Not only is it,,, fathering courts, fatherhood initiative, plus university based “fatherhood” research areas, such as:

    But also, to be “PC” (i.e., clean up the image) a new nonprofit has been formed, called: “omen In Fatherhood, Inc. (WIFI) is an organized voice of women with diverse perspectives and experiences. We are a national 501c3 comprised of women with direct or indirect professional involvement in the responsible fatherhood field. The mission of Women In Fatherhood is to contribute to and advocate for family and community well-being through the support of positive father involvement and healthy family relationships.”

    yeah, this includes some of the wives of head honchos of “fatherhood” guys. And their June 2010 newsletter shows they know how to get grants, too:
    “The US-DHHS Office of Family Assistance contracted with WIFI to write the following discussion papers. These papers will be disseminated through the National Clearinghouse on Responsible Fatherhood,
    • The Essential Voices of Women in Responsible Fatherhood examines the challenges and opportunities for women and men to collaborate in supporting fathers. ”

    My country is approximately 51% female, the Congress is not close to that, and as it’s said, we are half the population, but give birth to all of it (best I know — no human clones yet….), making us “mothers” — a word Pres. Obama can hardly say. He can say women & girls, but when it comes to families, and his own mother, he’s hard put to pronounce — or fund — the word.

    Really, many of these programs are mostly about money — but now how much sense would it make to push “motherhood” with a Congress that looks like THIS?:

    One site put 2007 Congress at between 17 – almost 18% female (whichever house). 112th Congress (current one, FYI) — “In the House, there are currently 360 men and 75 women. In the Senate, there are 17 women and 83 men.”

    Or, a color-coded USCensus map shows overall that, generally speaking, we are just over or just under 50/50 male to female. But not exactly so in the Congress.,229

    I do not have the solution, but it seems to me the more militaristic, aggressive, and patriarchal a country is (especially when religion is mixed in there), the more collective resentment when women get rights, or “westernized.” When you consider tax debt — and the need to constantly start and wage wars (including the US) — it’s not too surprising that women and children are getting the short end of the stick — because if we were running this place, I believe as mothers, we’d figure out a way to feed, educate, house and acculturate our kids to stop killing each other. We really would do it differently — and curtail some of the waste, and wars.

    Therefore, these heirarchical institutions virtually “have” to keep us down — to keep the profits up. “family courts” in most countries are not feminized — they are responsive to feminism by trying to counter it. The more fights, the more professionals are needed to “supervise” and coach = the better, when it comes to finances. I think we have to sooner or later realize this when it comes to the many incidents around divorces — who set the stage for the custody battles?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s