Yes those reasons do apply already RObert. Currently the divvy works thus, they that win the custody of the children win the lions share of the assets.

The current status assures the conflict continues for inordinate periods of time, and definitely ensuring the continuation of damage to children.

By removing either waring party from the claim of ownership of assets, the conflict is defused entirely.

The value of the cashed in assets (under my proposal), is transfers to the children who cannot cash in the value until the trust fund matures, IE when the child reaches eighteen.

Now the real effect of this proposal, is to remove the disputed parties from the court room. This is how it occurs; if the disputing parents reach an amicable " private" settlement, then the court is not obliged to intervene, by forcing mandatory sale of assets, and reallocating their value to the children.

It's a simple concept which I'm sure the purveyors of the dogs breakfast could castigate in short time, but something must change!

diver dan, two main objections
- The state should not steal peoples assets and give them to another, even if the other is the persons children. There is no requirement elsewhere for parents to hand over assets to children as they turn 18.
- It would add to the existing issue of people manipulating children and trying to isolate the other parent in the hope that some of those assets would be returned to the "poor" parent who was there for the children.

I think your proposal just makes the manipulation of children a greater issue than it already is (which is bad enough).

R0bert

RObert, please .

Firstly addressing your objections, the transfer of assets . It's reduculous to say that, when the Family Law Court customarily transfers the asset called the "child" at will.
Along with transferring unequal portions of family assets between waring parties in a divorce.

The loudest objection of the ordinary man towards the Family Court, is their interference in family settlements, both of assets and of the children.
And you would be aware that whole Goverment department exist in the name of child protection. The Goverment is intensely interested in child welfare.

And in your second objection; no, under this proposal, less manipulation would be the outcome, since waring parties are encouraged by its nature, to resolve their own issues amicably. This would be an amicable settlement, since if one or the other of the parties is feeling coerced, then they can win in effect, by forcing the hand of the other, and apply for the mandatry distribution of all assets to the children.
It's win, win for children!

So Jenifer do you understand why any suggested changes to the Family Courts resonates with the general public?
You have copped enough slings and arrows about your filthy money grubbing antics surely?
Now you learn a lesson Jenny, you and your colleagues need to mend your ways and learn to behave like human beings.
I also think a large pay cut for all judges because they have allowed the courts to consider everything a lawyer wants to put up so making molehills into mountains. Tell the judges if you want to double the time to do a job we will halve the rate on you and your lawyer mates. If there is one thing that gets their attention it is money.

Oh dear, another 'hit and run' by a bias author.

Jennifer Hetherington sort of misses the point. In 2014 The Productivity Commission recommended the way to cut court queues over night. They said adopt the NZ system, which is 50-50 paid quickly in all cases except paraplegic kids and short marriages. Mediation does not work- because as the Section 60 I factories simply prove, at law, mediation just means "turning up".