From various data, it appears that most people loose, not win from divorce and separation. Society as a whole also looses, and the present rates of divorce and separation are too high and cannot continue, but when considering the Child Support Taskforce recommendations, the recommendations from the previous Committee of Inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation, also have to be considered.

These recommendations included the following:-

“The committee recommends that Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 be amended to create a clear presumption, that can be rebutted, in favour of equal shared parental responsibility, as the first tier in post separation decision making. (para 2.82)”

“The committee recommends that Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 be further amended to remove the language of ‘residence’ and ‘contact’ in making orders between the parents and replace it with family friendly terms such as ‘parenting time’. (para 2.85)”

“- require mediators, counsellors, and legal advisers to assist parents for whom the presumption of shared parenting responsibility is
applicable, develop a parenting plan”
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/fca/childcustody/report/front.pdf

These recommendations have not been implemented to date, but the general emphasis is on Shared Parenting, and also the development of flexible Parenting Plans, which can be altered according to the needs of the child.

Issues such as child contact and child support are a part of the package of Shared Parenting, together with other issues such as schooling, contact with extended family, how the child support money will be spent, savings for the child etc. But the system whereby the mother gets custody of the child, and the father gets to pay child support and is granted visitation rights is draconian, inhuman, non-sustainable and of course in no one’s best interest.

While the recommendations from the Child Support Taskforce may affect previous couples that have separated and have no Parenting Plans, the recommendations should only act as a guide for future couples who develop Shared Parenting and Parenting Plans.

Timkin,
It seems to me that too many people lose by marriage, and divorce is the ultimate response to the failed attempt. By the time that occurs, there had usually (but not always) been much complex wrangling to unsuccessfully get needs met, wouldn't you agree?

That's what worries me about the concept of shared parenting. Nothing could be better for children than to have two parents who decide the children's welfare is more important that their own - which is a desirable concept pre deciding/choosing to have children.

But what of the far too many cases of entrenched violence that preceeds divorce, not just happens after seperation. On finances,

can't we work out a system that says how much it costs an adult to live, how much it costs for a child and multiples. Why is it that the men's groups are only quoted reacting from the hip pocket, rather than working constructively to teach boys to be good and fair men and good parents who can rise above personal pain in their interests, learning to budget etc.

Why do the children's econmic needs take second place to angry dads' costing and fear some of his money might help her, the woman he once loved, to care for their children?

Parenting before separation is an important issue don't you think , to help establish 'parenting after divorce'. Would be very hard to learn to parent at that point, and to keep the child's mental health in focus?

Regards Cotter

Cotter
I think you are making a number of pre-summations:-
I am a spokesman for men’s groups – I aren’t
Domestic violence is a pre-dominant factor in divorce – it isn’t
Males pre-dominate in domestic violence – appears to be myth.

I would agree that money isn't everything, and my main point is that the Child Support Taskforce recommendations will have to mesh with the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry (which is true, as they cannot be contrary), and the Committee of Inquiry recommended Shared Parenting and Parenting Plans.

Timkin, it is blatantly obvious that you are primarily interested in the rights of fathers and not of the rights of children. Everything you write smacks of this, but I guess you are in fine company as no one is really interested in the rights of children, which this report is going to attack if implemented into reality.

Until we as a society can actually DEFINE 'in the best interests of children' through such measures as the child's primary right to safety etc then I feel that the march will continue unfettered. Unfortunately the current situation is that the apparent right of a child to maintain a relationship with the father, even if that father clearly is an unsuitable person. It is just that thinking that needs to change ........ what ever happens it needs to 'be in the best interests of the children' and the recommendations in the report of that name just don't make the cut.

As for recommendations regarding shared parenting I guess you are yet another one of those advocates who feel that a child should be split between two households. Timkin, I have news for you - you can not split a human being in half like some sort of possession, because they are human. I was watching Playschool with ds the other day and was interested in the reading of a story book that they did. It talked about how the child had two houses, two of this and two of that and how the child had such and such at mummy's house, and such and such at daddy's house. What was highlighted in the story was that the child didn't have a home. This is the reality of 'shared custody', it is the child who actually loses, and you only have to talk to those who were forced to live such a life to understand the impact that it has.

Gosh, Timkin, I didn't think I said any of that or made any of those 'assumptions'. The Family Court tells me that it is quite recently they have analysed data to find that 65% of their workload is DV or child abuse related. So I think I believe them that violence in families is a big issue, and I wouldn't put up with it - why should any of us? It does correlate with 65% of police work in NSW, and other findings. (I didn't say/stress male on female violence - I said violence)

Because I trusted the new info from the court (not a stats expert), I was interested in how that could be resolved - this big violence issue. I guess some of the problem is that it's so hard to define exactly what is violence, is a man slapping his son's behind because he was doing something dangerous, violence? Is it the same thing as if a woman hits the boy for a reason? Is it the same strength> Is that what we are measuring? or is it the damage done, or is it the laying on of hands in anger?

Who should decide? I know spitting on someone is an assault in NSW - is that possibly DV?

I'm a people's rights activist. Does it matter?

Cotter

This entire discussion appears to pre-suppose that it is possible to legislate fairly for every situation and contingency that is the result of two human beings separating. It isn't.

Why do we continue to abdicate responsibility for ourselves, and let a bunch of politicians make decisions on our behalf? Individually they no more idea how to manage their personal affairs than you or I, yet we quite happily let them make up a new set of rules for us every few years.

It is not an accident, I would suggest, that so many politicians have a background in the legal profession - which is why they are so fond of making new laws to keep their brethren on the gravy train - and so few have backgrounds in practical stuff like commercial business.

We should be actively finding ways to take these decisions out of their hands, not keep finding new things for them to do.