Jacksun: you requested assistance 'help' was the term you used a fortnight ago in relation to your sister and I offered strategies to both yourself and Cotter [your mother]?

I posted consecutively on three occasions.

Thereafter I was attacked by ChazP who differed with my opinion, which is fine, although labelling using degradation as ChazP has done over many years previously with dozens of people, in her attempt to keep people quiet or annoy them into not re-posting [oldest strategy in the book],to further her own hidden personal agenda, made me a little annoyed [at her selfishness].

After all, if ChazP and Cotter were sufficiently serious about their objectives to change or amend the Family Law Act over the past 5 years, one would think they would have accomplished this to date instead of copying and linking repetitive 'Sociopath' material on every family law related thread on OLO over a 5 year period.

I spent a considerable amount of time responding to you Jacksun for the benefit of your nephew and family when I could have been focussing on other personal things.

If you were genuinely seeking assistance, a thank you from most people in your situation would have been forthcoming.

All the best nevertheless to your nephew and family 'Jacksun'.

Research conducted by Lenore Weitzman and published in her book the Divorce Revolution co-insided with Federal Labors push to end child poverty.

Her research had enormous influence on child support laws in the US and because we tend to follow US trends, one can assume that this research also influence Federal Labor policy at the time.

Typically her research findings appealed strongly to feminist urban myths and as such was not challanged, and she kept others from reviewing her findings for a long time.

http://www.acbr.com/biglie.htm

<In particular, the book's claim that in the year after divorce women's standard of living decreased by a whopping 73 percent while men enjoyed an increase of 43 percent caught the attention of pundits, legislators, and judges. This statistic has become one of the philosophical bases for deciding child custody and property division in divorce cases. It has also altered public perceptions of men, women, and divorce. It was cited hundreds of times in news stories, scholarly studies, and law review articles last year, and was regarded so clearly as holy writ that President Clinton cited it too in his budget proposal this year as part of his attack on deadbeat dads.

The only problem with this statistic, in fact, is that it turns out to be wrong. >

<When they looked at the status of men, however, Stroup and Pollock uncovered surprising information. "Keeping in mind the suggestion of Weitzman and others of economic gain by males with divorce," they wrote, "the results are sharply contrary to expectations." Instead of the 42 percent increase reported by Weitzman or the more common 10 percent figure, the data indicated an average 10 percent decrease in income, with professional men experiencing a decline of 8 percent and less-educated workers a drop of 19 percent. Stroup and Pollock wrote that Weitzman's "sharp generalization of a 42 percent rise in living standards for males certainly does not hold for our sample." More importantly, their findings presented an implicit challenge to the studies which reported lower figures than Weitzman but still agreed with the conventional wisdom that men benefit from divorce.>

So basically a quarter of a century later, the urban myth still lives on.

Why is not child support tax deductable?

In fact child support is a tax, that is levied against men by the the federal government.

Jacksun:"Chazp and cotter and that woman from Queensland do infact represent the murkier end of Family Law - the cases and kids who were in danger prior to separation, and after,"

So you approve of the actions of the woamn in Qld, who convinced her children, for reasons of her own, with no evidence whatever, that their father was a monster who was going to do terrible things to them. You approve of the woman who the judge called "despicable.

I'm glad we got that sorted out.

As for your fictitious nephew, the greatest hope a child like that has is that someone like cotter or Chazp isn't allowed anywhere near him and his neurotic mother is supervised at every step.

happy:"It is dirty for father’s groups to complain about money because they use dirty tactics, i.e. they lie about the real situation "

As a child support payer on $40,000 gross I was expected to fork out nearly 1/3 of my after tax money on child support, leaving me with the choice of paying rent or buying food. As a self-employer person in a business that had roughly 50% of its trunover in costs, I was expected by the CA to hand over 30% of my gross turnover, which would have sent me bankrupt.

As a paying parent who was paying regularly and above the CSA formula from the start, I've had the CSa "double dip" for 3 months of payments because they backdates the start date and then refused to acknowledge the money that had been paid, even when presented with receipts. I was accused of "trying to bully your ex into signing recaipts, we know what your type are like".

In the meantine, Patricia, children are being given to single mothers who only want them for the child support or as a form of revenge against their father and they are being neglected and abused in huge numbers. You and those like you who "tell lies for feminism" are responsible for that abuse, Patricia. I do hope you're proud.

One of the impossible ideologies is that following divorce or separation that children must not experience a fall in the standard of living.

So by default the custodial parent must also not experience a fall in the standard of living.

There are three options.

1) the custodial parent goes out to work
2) the government increases support
3) the non-custodial wage earner supports the ex and the children, just like the wage earner did when they were still married.

So basically women can divorce men, but men can never divorce women. Which is basically a bottomless money pit.

If the welfare of the children were the driving principle, why then not leave them with the income earner?

One thing came to my attention recently, female married a fella who already owned his own home, has a couple of kids, separate, divorce, property settlement, of course she winds up with the house.

After property settlement, kids go to stay with dad in his rented accomodation for a weekend, mum disappears, putting the house on the market.

Kids winded up living with dad in rented accommodation. Mum has moved onto another sucker.

Anti

Who are the people who lobby politicians on behalf of non-custodial paents? Are there particular organisations or political paties?