Severin "What I would really like to know is more general - how you feel about the current 50/50 legislation in the situations where parents do not get along and children are at risk? From what I understand children have been placed with abusive parents simply to comply with this rule."

I favor 50/50 as a default position (where both parents want at least that proportion of care. Where there is credible evidence of risk to the children (enough to have them removed from a parents care in other situations) then the default should not apply. Where there is entrenched conflict serious efforts should be made to work out who's driving the conflict rather than reverting to maternal bias as the default.

It would also help to find better way's of reducing the external stimulus to seek more contact than is really wanted - changes to property settlement rules to try and take away the win/loose scenario while still meeting the practical needs would be a good start. CSA continues to be a bone of contention, either ditch it entirely as a source of conflict or have the money paid into and taken out of a common pool rather than directly to or from the the other party.

R0bert

R0bert

I basically agree with your points.

In limited way, the 50/50 is a move towards acknowledging male parental contribution. However, used as a 'one size fits all' is no more progressive than the former legislation.

I agree the default position of 'maternal' should shift to 'parental'. Of course in the majority of cases this simply doesn't matter where parents are able to reach an agreement. It is an outrage in situations where the mother has been the abuser, a concerned father has been sidelined due to anachronistic views of men and women. Equitable participation in business, law and politics by women is proving to be a very slow and fraught process. Ideally where both partners wish to follow careers there needs be employers flexible enough to arrange part-time or malleable hours for either men or women who have caring duties (caring is not limited to children either, older relatives are just as valid and requiring care). No employee should be discriminated against due to family responsibilities. Until then, the onus tends to always fall on the female.

The issue of maintenance - again in most cases is agreed upon. It is only a minority who either flee their responsibilities or manipulate the situation due to selfishness. Again I do not wish to see the minority establish the law for the majority. Only in those cases where partners are simply not 'doing the right thing' should something like a government dictated distribution of monies be applied. Perhaps a constructive action would be to look at how more socially aware nations deal with separated parents, such as the usual suspects; Sweden, Denmark, Holland. There's some homework for you.

Cheers

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1024465/woman-sues-over-step-mum-getting-mum-tag

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/parents-stopping-kids-going-to-school-at-wadeye/story-e6frg6nf-1225840231233

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1016781/mum-who-gassed-kids-gets-life-sentence

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/hunt-ordered-for-fugitive-parents/story-e6frf7jo-1225840419918

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1016578/nt-woman-threw-baby-onto-footpath-court

i see Bab's & her sistas in da hood are telling deliberate, premeditated, half truth again. More carefully & politely this time, but that just makes the deception, more devious.

Antiseptic, hit the nail, right on the head as usual, by mentioning, also politely, Barbara Biggs traumatic childhood experiences. Suzeonline has again referred to her COD experience as well & this is exactly the problem. There is almost no such thing as a senior fauxmanista, social worker or counselor out there who had a normal upbringing. People whose parents had a happy, harmonious, successful marriage that did not end in divorce, don't, go into the industry. Only damaged goods do.

I have met &/or worked with many such people. Their father was either mentally ill, alcoholic, other drug addict, gambler, etc. So obviously they lived in slums with other children in the same boat. Many of these victims go on to live dysfunctional lives but there are some who by virtue of being born with a stronger personality &/or character pass well enough at school to continue education at TAFE &/or University. They are imbued with a burning desire to solve the problem.

At uni especially, their minds are further infested with "women's studies" & left wing politics generally. Where they are taught the black arts of stat/survey rigging, dogmatic propaganda, spin doctoring, etc.

Severin, "the great fauxmanista conspiracy", do you deny that women make up 90% of the social/community work force? Please all of you, don't believe me on this check it out for yourself.

Go to your local neighbourhood centre, the offices of DOCS, CSA, counselling services other than "men's helpline", police force DV or DOCS units, family court mediators/counselors, family lawyers specialising in "sep rep" work, academics, ministerial advisers, everywhere. If you see a male, he will invariably come from the same sad childhood and believe that almost all men are as evil as his father was.

90% of these sicko's are female however & the "old girls network", gleefully takes every opportunity to bash boys & men, individually & collectively.

Severin I detest homework.

I've found some info at a site whose agenda's I'm not across. From what I've seen so far it does not appear to be overly militant in any direction.

http://www.childpolicyintl.org/childsupport.html (The Clearinghouse on International Developments in Child, Youth and Family Policies
at COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - Last updated 2004)

My impression is that the countries listed struggle with some of the same issues. Some principles listed in the page on the Netherlands were interesting http://www.childpolicyintl.org/childsupporttables/1.105Netherlands.html

" * assessable income is calculated by deducting amounts for living expenses, which are based on social assistance rates, from gross income;
* for the non-resident parent allowance is made for the costs of setting up a new home and the costs of contact with the children;
* where the non-resident parent has a second family, assessable income is reduced by around 50 per cent to reflect an explicit principle that people should be free to form new relationships;
* partners of non-resident parents are expected to contribute to the maintenance of their own natural children, whether living with them or elsewhere, and may also be assessed as partially liable for their partner's children if their relationship is in effect that of a parent;
* where the resident parent has entered a new relationship, the decision about liability for maintenance between a step-parent and a non-resident parent is based on an assessment of the relationship between the child and the non-resident parent, including such issues as whose surname the child bears and how frequently contact occurs."

I'm still thinking about how to search for info on property settlement issues and the impact on child residency disputes. Apportioning property on the basis of child residency at the time of property settlement can in my view be a massive factor in contributing to disputes about child residency. The long term stakes can be very high for both parents.

Formersnag tone it down will you please. What are you trying to achieve with post's like that?

R0bert

R0bert

I haven't found anything particularly illuminating regarding 50/50 custody either. Apart from that it is a trend for most western countries and that nations like Sweden had it long before Australia or USA. Also nations like Sweden treat children as separate legal persons.

I think we are learning as we go along. I, for one, am grateful for the small amount of common-sense I had in my twenties resulted in me leaving my husband before having children. I accept that I may have 'missed the boat' now in terms of breeding, but we all pay prices for something and I know I did the right thing back then.

R0bert, for you personally, is the 50/50 rule having any improvement in your situation? I forgot to ask that before.

Severin, for me personally the 50/50 rule makes no legal difference but I suspect that the change in perceptions about single dad's does make a difference. When I first started as a single dad doing shared care I used to regularly get people making it clear that they needed to talk to the "real" parent but I've not had that for years.

That seemed to change around the time the changes were brought in, the issue may have forced people to rethink some assumptions. That occurred over a relatively short time frame. Those are subjective observations.

My expectation is that if 50/50 had been in earlier it would have changed the way I was treated by industry people who at the time seemed to struggle with something other than 80/20. It may have also changed my ex's views on what she was entitled to.

R0bert