Ammonite, "Why should a baby have to have formula if the mother is producing plenty of milk? " As I said I think there is a good case for prime care being with the mother in that situation. What I don't think should happen is that situation should be used as a precedent for future care arrangements or used to divide family assets inequitably.

Agreed parents who care for their kid's may well be willing to see less of them if it actually helps with stability. I don't think the case is proven that the extra stability of one prime carer outweighs the benefits of having both parents actively involved though. In some circumstances but not nearly as much as some would like us to believe. I also don't think that the parent willing to make that sacrifice should also be required to sacrifice a long term meaningful role in the child's life or their own ability to move on because of that sacrifice.

Far too much is riding on those early residency decisions for all involved and I think that there is a lot we can do to reduce that pressure.

R0bert

Robert

I am merely pointing out to you that a 50/50 ruling cannot work in all cases - such as breastfeeding a child. I have clearly demonstrated that all cases need to be assessed individually.

And admitted that there is no magic solution. 50/50 generally works where the parents are able to reach amicable arrangements - the majority and not the people being discussed here. The minority who wind up in the courts are often angry and more concerned about 'evening the score' between themselves and their partners than they are about caring for the well being of their children. Perhaps in these cases the children should be removed completely from both parents and placed in the care of people who love children and understand that childhood is such a short period of a person's life and the most important. Children only get one chance at childhood. As adults we make mistakes and can take responsibility for those mistakes - children do not have that power.

I concur that children can be resilient - but 50/50 does not work for all. I may have misunderstood you, but you appear more concerned at keeping childcare 'even' like one does with a property settlement. Children are not property.

Ammonite I completely agree that 50/50 shared care does not work in all situations.

I prefer it as the default position rather than the 80/20 we used have because it helps the chances of people negotiating better outcomes. Maybe reflective of my own experience and that of other seperated fathers from the pre-2006 period when ex's assumed that it was their right to prime care as mothers and of some fathers who didn't think they had a responsibility to do hands on care of children. The same assumptions seemed to be prevalent in a lot of the support services as well.

I really do think that the winner takes all approach to initial determination of child residency both in future residency, property etc contributes to a lot of the preventable harm to kid's. It put's parents of both genders under enormous stress at a time when they are already going through enough other stuff.

It creates a situation where parents can be impacted by disproportionate benefit or harm based on residency decisions which may be based on relatively minor differences to the child.

I'm not talking about extremes with that although at the extreme end some people obviously do great harm to their kid's for their own benefit.

It's never been from my perspective a belief that 50/50 will always work. Rather a belief that it's a better starting place than 80/20 etc and a desire to reduce the external motivators for bad residency decisions and to reduce the ability of players to manipulate the system for personal advantage.

I'm not convinced that all those cases that don't end up in the courts are mutually satisfactory to both parents, from what I've seen of it one party will settle for outcomes that they are deeply dissatisfied with rather than face the horror of a family law battle with an ex who plays dirty.

R0bert

Robert

I completely agree. I also concur that 50/50 is a good place to start - we need somewhere. What has occurred is that this ruling has been taken as the optimal solution and families have found themselves in just as much crisis as the old 80/20 which was indeed lacking any basis in the reality of 21st century parenting.

Where I am disappointed is the confrontational methods taken by many men's and women's groups. If there is one area of human life where bi-partisan efforts are desperately required it is in child welfare. This means give and take on both sides and yes, some parties will feel more disadvantaged than others, however the goal is the growth and prospective lives of children and I believe that is where the goal must remain.

Life is full of compromise - we do it every day; from abiding road rules through, obeying our boss at work through to caring for others. Time for children to take centre stage and not the emotive feelings of aggrieved parents.

Robert & Ammonite – you are both still arguing from a parent’s perspective and not from a child’s Needs, and Rights perspective.
e.g. “And admitted that there is no magic solution. 50/50 generally works where the parents are able to reach amicable arrangements...”
“I completely agree. I also concur that 50/50 is a good place to start...”
You are still saying that children should be divided up along with other financial and household items. It may come as a shock to you both, but children are human beings with their own views and feelings about who they want to live with.
But then Ammonite does a volte face’ and contradicts yourselves by stating “Time for children to take centre stage and not the emotive feelings of aggrieved parents.”.
Shared Care has reached the ridiculous state whereby children are forced to attend different schools on a week-about basis, and or travel from Dubai to Sydney on a month-about-basis or are forced to travel for many hours, even interstate to afford contact to a non-resident parent. How are children in such situations supposed to form and maintain social relationships with their peer groups.?. How are they supposed to have stability and consistency in their lives?. How are they able to enjoy leisure and sports pursuits with their friends?.
It is also a massive assumption on your part that all children want to be with or spend time with a parent – frequently they are forced to do so, because that parent has the RIGHT to make them. What about the 180,000 parents who choose not to have any interests in their children’s lives?. Should children not have a reciprocal right to have that parent forced to spend time with them?.
The starting point for any arrangement for the care of children should be where that child is most likely to receive caring, compassionate, consistent, and constant attention to their needs and where they will be safe and protected from harm and exploitation, and respected as human beings, and not merely as the shared possessions of their parents, as you are suggesting.

ChazP

I can only state that you have selectively read my posts, which have been all about putting children's needs first. I have also criticised 50/50 as being used to apply to all cases - that they need to be assessed each on its merits.

I am still perplexed that someone like Robert would support removing a breastfeeding baby from its mother for 50% of the time, but he has agreed that each case differs. A baby would only need to be separated from its mother if the baby was in danger from the mother, otherwise it is far better for it to remain with its lactating mother. This is just good sense.

Family Law is one of the most fraught aspects of law. While it remains as a tool for warring parents, children will suffer. 50/50 is only a place from which to start, the mistake was enforcing it as the rule which is not likely to work with parents who are are unable to compromise with each other.

Look at some of the posters here, all they do is write posts condemning one sex and never attempting to work out solutions, one can only make assumptions what they are like with their families in their real lives, how much they are prepared to negotiate with their partners? Very little, it seems.

What would you suggest to these embittered people, how do you reason with them?