Antiseptic ~ Quote ~ "I've already pointed out that in the 70s David Hamilton was able to amass a considerable fortune from the photography of young girls, all done with the proud consent of the parents of the children. Photographs are not "dirty": how people act in response to photographs often is. One of the dirtiest responses is to project one's own reactions to others. IOW, "I reckon I could get turned on by this, therefore you can't see it".
Notably the children's consent was not obtained and `Proud' parents do not always act in the best interests of their children. For what reasons would they be `proud' of showing off the naked bodies of their children?. Did they make the children aware before the photographs were taken of them naked that such photographs would be distributed far and wide for others to see and make available on their coffee tables?. Or what the impact would likely to be when they were adults and their friends and work colleagues etc would have access to them. What possible reason could an adult have for being interested in and to look constantly at the naked bodies of pre-pubescent children?.Your excuse for early stage paedophilia is very transparent Antiseptic.

Over 130,000 children per year are being maintained by Australian taxpayers because their parents (mainly fathers) evade child maintenance. Denial of financial support is one of the worst forms of child abuse, but of course is not recorded in official statistics unless it leads to neglect (due to insufficiency of income) when it is the mother who is blamed and named in official statistics. The Family Law Act has given a perfect vehicle for parents to evade child maintenance by taking on minimal `shared' care or full care. That was the major motive behind the Shared Care legislation. [`Shared Parenting' has always been the legal right of all parents on separation therefore it is a non-sequitur].
A close examination of a father's involvement in and interest in the `shared care' of the children BEFORE separation (as recommended by Professor Chisholm) would expose those who were using this mechanism for evasion of child maintenance payments and as a means of harrassing and further abusing their ex-partners, from those who were genuinely concerned for their children. I know which would be in the majority. But of course this is why the FR groups are fighting so desperately to preserve the `Shared Parenting' laws.

Wow ChazP, that's pretty amazing. All these fathers don't really like their own kids, but actually will look after them so their ex-spouse doesn't get as much money from them? You obviously don't like men or don't appreciate most men really love their kids.

Pynchme

Sorry, I cannot find where I got the alcoholic bit from either. The best that I can come up with is

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/fury-at-ruling-in-custody-battle/story-e6frf7l6-1225817724269

and

"The Family Court judge found Bill's ex-wife to be violent, untruthful, lacking moral values and responsible for the psychological and emotional abuse of her children - but still gave her custody of the two girls, now aged 9 and 11, because they had become estranged from their father."

http://www.news.com.au/national/sex-abuse-accused-dad-fights-back/story-e6frfkvr-1225822899736

Posted by vanna, Saturday, 27 March 2010 6:27:01 PM

Either I'm mistaken about the alcoholic bit, or I read it elsewhere. However, my argument still holds. The mum is as risky as the dad.

Chaz

There is something troublig about the number of parents evading child support. The current CSA system has created a number of unintended outcomes, such as large numbers of these parents. Perhaps this indicates a need to review levels of child support payable.

"Over 130,000 children per year are being maintained by Australian taxpayers because their parents (mainly fathers) evade child maintenance" - so what are the mothers of these children doing to meet the financial needs of the children?

Is it one of the worst forms of child abuse when a father won't pay but a non-issue when a mother is unwilling to provide financial support for children? That's the impression I get from reading the comments by some.

I've been a single parent for years with no regular financial support from my son's mother. A small number of things that she has specifically wanted have been paid for but no money directly to me for the day to day living cost's of raising a child. I've also had only the minimum of government support (minimum rates of Family Tax Benefit).

I've worked (thankfully with relatively flexible work arrangements) to keep our home going. It's not always ideal but life is not always ideal and for the most part it works well.

I think that we are all better off without the ongoing issues of having our finances tied together. Making the other decisions we need to make together as parents can be difficult enough without the ongoing pressures on both sides of tied finances.

R0bert

Dear ChazP,

You have no understanding of the child support system. The statement you declare.."Over 130,000 children per year are being maintained by Australian taxpayers because their parents (mainly fathers) evade child maintenance", is a misleading claim. What you overlook is that those children get a tax benefit part A and B paid to the parent with most care (usually the mother, surprise, surprise). This is paid to the custodial parent irrespective of the money given by the father. So ChazP, can you please explain to me how these kids are "maintained" by the taxpayer? The fathers don't get paid this money only the mothers. So if anything, the taxpayer is paying the mother. My guess is that you will have no idea what I am talking about because you are intellectually challenged!