I always find it absurd how mainstream advice columns are so predictable: every single question that can be read as " ...[Whatever]... I think this child is unhappy ... [Whatever] ..." has an automatic guaranteed response: "What you are seeing MAY BE ABUSE, YOU MUST CONTACT THE AUTHORITIES *NOW*." Prudence has always gained credibility by using a bit more nuance with such questions (do Slate's lawyers know about this ? -:) ). And congratulations for doing so again.

But I'm merely curious: if all facts of the letter had been otherwise the same, except that it was a single father and a 9-year old daughter, would your response have been _identical_? If not, how would it differ, and why?

I've seen far too many occasions when a woman who is treated badly outside the home by men takes it out on the little boys who are in her power. It's an ugly situation, and frequently not addressed because anybody who attempts to do so is denigrated as a sexist or woman-hater.

What are you, Jerry Bruckheiomer?

Women can be as nasty as they want to their kids on their own, WITHOUT having to "take it out" on them because she was abused elsewhere.

Quit living in your magic CSI world where even the criminal women have basically pure motivations. Chicks are evil too, dawg.