I think that it is extremely important to have a fathers view in research regarding children. While the primary caregiver (often the mother) may often know the intimate details of their children (height, weight, routine, etc.) it cannot be denied that fathers often have a great influence over their children.

Research has shown even simple things such as eating habits in children are more heavily influenced by a fathers meal time habits, rather than a mothers. The mental well being of a father impacts heavily upon home life. Fathers often have a different perspective of their children than a mother and may be more adept at picking up different issues or problems. None of these things can be discounted in research.

Research upon children would greatly improve if both caregivers (in assuming there are 2 caregivers, which is not always the case) were given a chance to have their say. Important influences in a childs life do not stop with the primary caregiver.

There is also a subjective nature to questions such as "does your child ever suffer from anxiety" that may vary depending on which parent is asked. I am much more likely to see anxiety in my children than my wife is due to our personality differences so depending on who you ask you get two different answers.
It is possible that there are gender differences in the way fathers and mothers view psychological health and how they perceive sadness and worry etc that could skew the findings either way.
Better to interview both to ensure that these things (potential or real) are eliminated.

Obviously the Australia Institute of Famly Studies should be the organisation that should be involved in research into families and children, but it was found some years ago that it had collected very little data on fathers in Australia, although it had been operation for some 20 years.

“In recent years, increasing research attention is being paid to fathers. In Australia, small pockets of research exist but the gaps in our knowledge remain large and fundamental. For instance, around one million children under 18 live with one natural parent but have another parent living elsewhere. For 88% of these children, the parent with whom they live is their mother. Around one in three children of these one million children, moreover, have little if any contact with their father. Yet we know very little about paternal disengagement, and about the nature and quality of father-child contact where it occurs. The Institute is currently exploring these issues but much work needs to be done in this area.”

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/papers/smyth5.html

I wouldn’t rely on much at all from social science, because it is so gender biased, subjective and corrupted by feminist theory. Except perhaps data from the HILDA survey. In that survey, people agree to participate, without really knowing what questions they will be asked.

The survey involves research on households and family life; incomes and economic wellbeing, labour market outcomes; and life satisfaction, health and wellbeing.

http://melbourneinstitute.com/hilda/

Having had a quick look at the survey results, it seems to me that's all the Victorian government did - take a quick look. There is no in-depth analysis of mental health problems, and no effort at diagnosis in specific cases. The whole thing was done on a quick phone call to whoever happened to be the primary caregiver. They even state that they wanted some sort of surveillance mechanism providing an overview, being government I expect merely for planning and budgetary purposes.

I doubt that they singeled out mothers especially. The person they specifically asked to consult was the primary caregiver. It simply happens to be (as a sole father for 15 years I think sadly) the case that women generally and mothers specifically are still being set up as primary caregivers to children while the hapless sperm donor is morphed into an ATM. Those issues are far beyond the scope of a quick phone survey.

Why this survey is being compared with Phares and Compas on the role of fathers in child psychopathology is thus beyond me, as if here somehow or other mothers are being blamed for the 10-12% of children so loosely gleaned from a loose survey as exhibiting some cause for concern. There is no evidence that's the case.

I find myself very disappointed that a wider overview of the literature was not done here to balance the account and place this particular survey in perspective. I find myself disappointed that it is being used here to raise hoary old sex and gender binaries in families when there is no evidence from the material that sex and gender are contributing factors in the mental health of children. All it asked was whether the child was a boy or girl - though here I remain critical of its use of 'gender' when they clearly meant to ascertain the sex of the child.

We know already that all children are exposed to a range of development risk factors few of which have anything to do with the mental health of parents, or even caused by poor parental mental health, but are simply exacerbated by the parent's inability to help and support the child at that time because of their own illness. Childhood development risk has a far more frequently beneficial effect in building resilience, all other things being pretty much equal. The last thing I ever wanted to do with my kids was be overly protective.

We know that most often, where the family unit is intact and functioning, the father will be doing much of the work supporting a chronically dysfunctional mother and the children at the same time, and vice versa, without the children being affected detrimentally. I dare suggest from the evidence that those children turn out far more resilient, more caring and thoughtful with better mental health, that those growing up in 'the perfect family', assuming such a blessed state even exists.

We know too that in assessing these presentations both internal and external factors need to be taken into account, including low birth weight, failure to thrive and maternal post-natal depression, neighbourhood and social environment, and especially school environment and the extent of bullying, for example, which can keep the poor suffering parents at wits end trying to support bullied children, or worse dealing with their own bullying child.

But more than all that, what we are not being given are accolades to the ~90% of parents whose children are not of concern. The headlines might as well read "90% of Victorian children are mentally healthy, parents and schools to be congratulated." That would be nice.

In the meantime, it would be just as nice for the Victorian government to provide enhanced guidance and support to families with children showing cause for concern in mental health, which I believe is their intent, and put this stupid, ineffectual feminist and left-wing sex and gender blame game behind them altogether.