I have read this silly article, and I agree with Naomi above completely. Apparently it was originally published in the 'Herald-Sun'... which just about says it all really.

What is it with law academics these days? And this journal? Is it that hard to find quality contributors?

I also agree that the commentary at Larvatus Prodeo about this article is far more enlightening than what seems to be the norm for debates about gender related issue at this blog.

James

I find it inconceiveable that a woman would endure nine months of pregancy and then painful childbirth for the sake of status! What status? From a female viewpoint, your argument makes no sense to me at all.

And as for people earning over $70,000 per year having to be further taxed to support some mothers and children is just plain wrong. People on that level of income must have worked hard to get there. Why should they pay for the possible selfishness and egocentricity of others?

Most people have children by choice - not by accident. When people make a deliberate choice to have children, in my view, they should have to pay for them.

I do not earn $70,000 per year, but if I did, I would be incensed by your suggestion re increased taxation to support others - this of course does not mean that I am against a necessary welfare system for people with disabilities and the ageing population.

Even so, thank you for your article.
Cheers
Kay

enaj, I'm in agreement with your point that both men and women are human and have failings. Unfortunately the family law system in this country acts as though that is not the case. The combination of maternal bias, social expectations and support etc mean that it is most often women who have the opportunity to use kids for their own purposes.

Now on to the topic -

There are a couple of assumptions which underlie the responsibilities of parents towards their children.
- The responsibility to provide nurture (day to day care, teaching, loving etc) to your children.
- The responsibility to provide financially for your children.

They are not interchangeable and should not be treated as such. Both parents have a responsibility and should have opportunity to do their share of both parts of parenting. If society chooses to excuse one parent from their share of either of those responsibilities without the willing consent of the other parent then the responsibility for the shortfall should not fall on that other parent. That however is exactly the situation faced by many parents. Many fathers want more opportunity to do the nurturing part and a more reasonable share of the cost of raising their children. Those parents have no say in the other parents employment choices but are held financially responsible for those choices.

I gather (but have not met any dads who claim to be one) that there are some dads who do not want the nurture responsibility. I'm not discussing those situations here (word limits etc).

Another post will follow on what I perceive to be some of the consequences of the current approach to child support.

R0bert

Naomi
I get the impression the author was trying to get some thinking going.
Taking an 'out on a limb' appraoch and saying some quite 'out there' things is often a good way to do this.

I believe James does have one most IMPORTANT point to offer. That is, the goal of single custodial mums spending time raising the children without the added stress of trying to manage a career as well.

I don't agree with his means of providing funding for this, -if tax was the answer, I'd say increase mildly across the board not just one segment. There is no need to have kittens over his statement. Use it for constructive input.

I would prefer to see a shift in education towards family values as a whole, and enhancing extended family as part of that. We have too many 'would be' Bronzed self reliant/individual Anzacs, and too few members of a team.

And of course, the best is last, we need to regain our moral anchor, we have been drifting rudderless in the storms of wayward humanism, barren socialism and cold capitalism for too long now. Time to do some national repenting and hunger and thirst for national/personal renewal. "In Christ"

The following comments are my impressions of the current child support system (including C$A payments, family tax benefits, single parent pensions etc). They are from the perspective of a middle income earner who wants to be a viable father to his son.

The current approach to child support may
- Require child support payments well beyond the reasonable cost of raising children
- Contribute to ongoing tension and conflict between parents.
- Leave one or both parents feeling aggrieved and contribute to children being a source of pain to that parent which is probably damaging to the relationship between parent and child (unless the parent is especially perfect).
- Take no account of the circumstances which lead to residency arrangements. Non custodial loose both their children and a financial future if the custodial parent relocates to another area and the custodial parents gets more money for doing so.
- Encourage disputes over residency with the increased funding related to a larger share of residency.
- Minimise the motivation of payers to make an extra effort financially (Overtime this year might mean an increased assessment for next year etc).

I'd like to see the financial support for parents who don't cooperate with shared nurture responsibilities to be assessed quite differently to that for those left with all the nurture responsibility by the other parents lack of interest. I'd also like it recognised that separated/divorced parents should not have to prop up the welfare system for ex's who don't like working.

R0bert

Old African proverb:

"It takes a whole village to raise a child"

It seems to me that those who say it is their right to abrogate this responsibility are not living up to their obligations as members of the village.

Little wonder we have juvenile delinquents in our 'village'.