Severin ~ please read, think about, and understand before shooting off your responses. There are some men who perform caring roles and tasks, in such as hospitals, schools, nursing homes etc. But that is not the same as what I was talking about which is the total emotional and psychological experience of mother and child from conception onwards.

Suxeonline ~ I am an observer of social behaviours and social trends and have read a great deal of sociological literature on changes in human relationships. They were observations not opinions but perhaps you don’t understand the difference. I talk to many young career women and in rapidly increasing numbers they are saying that they enjoy their freedoms, their lifestyles, and their power over their own lives from being single. Just as most males do. Some reach a point when they want a child, but not the baggage that goes with it. (Their words, not mine). All they require is a sperm donor. Traditional subservient and servile `Mums’ are in decline.

Pynchme ~ Your hypothetical question ~ in some parts of the UK e.g. the Channel Islands, that still applies. Fathers are given sole custody of children immediately on separation and mothers have no rights whatsoever. Victorian and archaic but its still happening.

Females have been reviled, denigrated, and defiled by males throughout history as far back as Mary Magdalena through the witchcraft murders of half a million females, so the bitter comments of these few males are but nothing in the present day. Males have jealously guarded their power and control over females and have struck back viciously in times when such power and control have loosened. Hence the constant attacks on feminism as they see this as organised resistance to their domination. Even their religious scriptures keep females in positions of subservience and obedience, and similarly revile them and do not allow them positions of authority within those religions.

Your passivity and reasonableness are commendable but the FR Rednecks are setting the agenda and attacking females with abuse and vitriol at every opportunity and appeasement does not stop tyrants

ChazP

<<< Severin ~ please read, think about, and understand before shooting off your responses. >>>

OK, I tried to present my point of view to you, however with responses like that above I can see that you are no better than Anti-septic, Formersnag or even R0bert (who has yet to stand up to the embittered crowd - I have been around OLO for quite a while R0bert).

ChazP, I disagree with you - get over it. I know that most men are capable of being just as nurturing as women - however, it is generally not encouraged; I know whenever CJ Morgan has clearly put the embittered crowd in their appropriate place, he has been subjected to abuse. No doubt men who seek out caring professions also are bullied - men need emancipation just as much as women. Why should they be forced into alpha macho roles? Most men are just as caring as women, else life would be even more fraught than it already is for women and children. The fact is the majority of relationships work - the abusive and the abused are not the bulk of the population - nor does gender determine whether a person is abusive or not.

You cannot create balance by alienating ALL men, by doing so you divide us all.

I'm not sure who asked me, but I would have no problems with leaving my children with big burly males. Since when did physical appearance determine character? Some of the most significant men in my life have rather resembled giants and some of the most vindictive and manipulative have been of shorter stature.

Back on topic, dividing the lives of children into a 50/50 split to appease the egos of parents is an appalling law and needs immediate change. I agree that a parent who has been disinterested in the care, wellbeing and nurturing of their children are highly unlikely to change their ways at separation with their spouse. Until the needs of children are put before both parents, Family Courts will remain the arena of the embittered of either sex.

Shivers

"More consideration needs to be given as to WHY the abusive parent is requesting 50/50 access" You answered your own question a little later when you talked about money. For as long as child support payments exceed the true cost of looking after children, disinterested parents will fight for as much custody as possible. I don't think that it is helpful to see this as an attempt to control their ex-partner. This stereotype of men as controlling needs to find a home in the same gargbage bin as "women are naturally more caring".

Similarly, these women that Chaz knows who want all of the advantages of a relationship while still wanting the freedom of a single person need to grow up. Do-not encourage this fantasy simply because it is what she wants to hear.

Eyeinthesky.

Spot-on. No wonder men tend to get so defensive. Ms Biggs only damages her own cause by being so sexist.

Benk < "For as long as child support payments exceed the true cost of looking after children, disinterested parents will fight for as much custody as possible. I don't think that it is helpful to see this as an attempt to control their ex-partner."

How does the Family Court work out what payments are fair Benk?
Would any amount of money be a fair amount in the eyes of angry ex-partners? I don't think so.
Wouldn't there be massive protests by the many people affected by these payments if they were truly unfair?

I agree that money is often at the heart of some Family Court issues, however I believe that the parent who has the children for the majority of the time is quite often the poorer financially, unless they have a new partner.

On the other hand, I have known of several parents who baulk at paying anything for child maintenance because they see that money as going to the ex-partner, rather than to the children.

In other words, they would rather not pay anything for their children's upkeep than give it to their ex-partner.
Am I wrong here Benk?

It is a fantasy that child support payments meet even half the costs of children. Let's face it, the 1st $17,000 earnings are not counted and the income assessed is capped at just over 100K, then it is 14% assessed from the remaining income for children 0-12. Any partnered parent who suggested they should only pay the child support assessed amount to their child's costs would find as an average wage earner, that there was still a big gap to pay the mortgage, the school fees, the clothing costs, the medical and dental bills, recreation tickets, uniforms, fees and insurances and feed the child. Splitting the child between parents helps the payer pay less. It doesn't make the actual child cheaper.

Mog, I'm guessing that if both parents still lived with the children, that the cost of rearing the kids would be just as much?

Maybe the difference could be that now the kids get two of everything at birthdays and celebrations, and need two of everything if they are to live in two households?

I think that is a cost that the parents need to bear if they wish to live apart, and should not be counted in the usual calculations of expenses likely to be born by them.

Kids are very expensive to raise these days, whether parents are apart or not.