Sylvia,
I agree with SilverSurfer. There have been a range of potential solutions put forward that can reduce the “risk”, but it is noticed that most of these require very little if any government spending.

Many require changes to government legislation, but unfortunately when such proposals are point to government, someone will say that it will be taking away women’s “choice”, so society either stagnates or goes backwards, and eventually no one (men, women or children) have much “choice” regards anything.

Our society cannot go backwards much further. Marriage is at a record low, there is a growing number of single person households, too few children are being born, and society can no longer afford the welfare payments.

This is despite the many billions of dollars already spent by government departments such as the Department of Family and Community Services. That becomes the sad part.

There are two separate aspects to a risk.

The first is the probability of an event occuring. In the context of my article, it is the probability that there will be a relationship break up after children are born. The potential ways of reducing the probability are reducing the proportion of relationships that are ill-advised in the first place, and providing assistance to preserve relationships that are in trouble.

The second aspect of a risk is the damage done by an event when it occurs. We're talking here about the cost to the father of child support paid to the mother. This aspect can be reduced either at the expense of the mother, or at the expense of society.

I'm quite sceptical of the extent to which marriages can be saved when they get into trouble. No doubt some can, but unless a significant majority can be saved, that aspect of the risk is not much changed in the minds of prospective fathers. Taking care not to get into illl-advised relationships in the first place is of course what men are doing if they delay having children.

On the child support front, while I do have some misgivings about the functioning of the child support formular in some areas of its application, I don't think I'd favour a general reduction in child support levels received by custodial parents.

So I end up with the same conclusion - society needs to spend some money on this.

Sylvia Else

Sylvia, I would very much like to see a significant reduction in all types of child support where the payee has chosen their situation rather than having it thrust upon them - eg refusing to cooperate with shared parenting, moving away from the other parent etc.

Obviously there is a need to deal with the situations when this occurs because of a genuine risk of violence to the payee or children by the other parent or where the other parent is unwilling to care for their kids.

The current system fails to take into account the reasons why a parent is carrying the burden of prime care.

A parents lifestyle choices are no more societies responsibility than they are with an intact family nor should they be the responsibility of the other parent. I have no control over my ex's employment choices nor her decision to relocate to a place which has made shared care unworkable, why should the tax payer or I have to give her additional support as a consequence?

Child support is treated as a suppliment to welfare by some and this should never be the case.

Sylvia.
Your argument is that government (or the tax payer) should spend more, but the government has already spent billions, for society to go backwards. In 1970 there were about 100,000 single parent families, but by 2000 there were close to 800,000, and I doubt very much whether the general level of happiness in society has increased much since 1970.

During this time taxes have increased, and government has spent billions – to go backwards, and it is now at the stage where taxes can’t increase much more, nor can divorce, nor the low rate of childbirth. But assuming that taxes could be raised even further, it is very suspect that spending even more government money will improve society, or make it go backwards even further still.

There is also a lot of data showing that de facto relationships are not as good for society as marriage, so if government spends more money it should be spending it to encourage longer term marriage. If the government just gives money to individuals, they can go and have a series of de facto relationships, which eventually makes it worse for them, and eventually worse for society.

As Robert has pointed out, the present system of child support enables the mother lots of “choice” as she can spend it anyway she wants, relocate to another town, deny the father contact etc. However it does not give much “choice” to anyone else, particularly for the father who is treated like a type of criminal. The government paying the mother child support is not likely to change any of that.

The whole system is now a total mess, (and it has been exactly the same wherever these anti-family and anti-marriage Marxist type philosophies have been tried), but it is highly unlikely that spending even more government money will improve the situation, although some simple changes to legislation probably would.

So that is where society is at:- spend even more money, or start thinking about changes to legislation.

Why do people insist that anyone who makes a pragmatic assessment of the risks of marital breakdown is in effect 'doomed to becoming a divorce statistc?' The connection is patently illogical. One does not equal, nor even predict the other.

l put my seat belt on when in the car. l have motor vehicle insurance. l have health insurance. l watch what other drivers are doing and l drive defensively. After all, the consequences of an accident can be quite onerous.

Does that mean l inadvertantly intend to be in an accident. That my careful and considered behaviour is a predictor of a future accident. That l will inevitably become a road accident statistic?

It make for spurious logical fallacy.

Sylvia,
how can you be saddened or disappointed by what some posters are saying here regarding gender politics as a primary cause of the perceived risk? You seem to only want to address the cough rather than whats causing the cold. That is how these people see it and rather than a possible contemplation of their perceived cause of the problem regarding risk, you make the value judgment that it sadens you.

'It should have generated no more emotion than the observation that you need to take an umbrella if you go out in the rain and don't want to get wet.' ... well if someone tries stop me from taking the umbrella or pokes holes in it before l head out, its hard not to get a bit emotional.

My personal reservations about marriage stem from the weakness of the marital contract. It fails to offer basic protection in the event of a breach or default, which to my understanding is one of the most essential aspects of contract law and civil interactions between contracting parties. These pragmatic concerns tend to be very quickly rubbished in the name of romance and worderful yet nebulous concepts like love. Marriage is a serious undertaking. It deserves nothing less than sensible and rational contemplation prior to the commitment. It is also an institution that is built purely on pragmatism. The love and romance angle is just spin and l suspect it gets top billing these days because it has devolved very little practical importance for people and for many has become about pursuing the romantic fairytale. Afterall, you can just live in sin. One does not require marriage to be and stay in love. Nor to commit to each other, as the nearly even chance of divorce proves.

Essentially the thing is founded on some major flaws, which until addressed will just get worse. Personally, lm hopeful and optimistic but l wont ignore the realities just to avoid being shamed and guilt tripped because l dont attach a romantic ideal to marriage.