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.

One of the most striking things about this debate is the way in which it is argued holistically.

In reality, there are a number of distinct payer groups whom the system treats quite differently.

a) Payers who pay according to the formula, based on their true earnings.

b) Payers who pay according to the formula, but who use various methods to reduce their taxable incomes.

c) Payers whose liability has to be estimated, because the CSA has no reliable data on their taxable incomes.

d) Non-payers, who simply don't pay.

A fair system will contain a fair formula, and all liable parents will be in the first payer group.

The report recommends that the CSA be given resources to address the impacts of mechanisms used by people in the (b) group.

The ATO can already levy penalties for non-lodgement of tax returns, and can also take a person to court for refusing to comply with the requirement that a tax return by filed.

The CSA already has powers to deal with non-payers, although it appears those powers are not used very effectively.

Once people are compliant payers, in the (a) group, the issue becomes one of fairness. Essentially the question is one standard of living should the child receive after separation.

There are those who think the child should have the standard of living that they would have had had the relationship not failed. This requires so many assumptions as to what would have happened as to be almost meaningless.

Those custodial parents who look on with jealousy at their ex partner's post separation standard of living need to ask themselves a difficult question - are they willing let the other parent have custody so that the child can benefit? Of course, this is not always an option, but often it is. There is thus an element of choice for the custodial parent. If they're tolerating a lower standard of living, it's because they find some other value therein.

...continued.

... continued

In most cases, the reason that the custodial parent experiences a drop in standard of living is not that insufficient money is provided for the upkeep of the child, but that money is no longer being provided by the non-custodial parent for the upkeep of the custodial parent. In otherwords, there is no spousal maintenance. The child's standard of living drops, if it does, because the custodial parent is spending some of the child support on their own upkeep, even though it's meant to be spent on the child.

This is not a criticism - it's almost unavoidable, because much of the standard of living is determined by shared resources, such as the place of residence.

Some single parents nevertheless manage to get jobs and provide themselves and their children with a decent standard of living.

However, it is also true that some parents seem content to live on single parenting payment and child support even when their youngest child is in its teens. Such parents need not look far for an explanation of their relative poverty.

The child support system exists because there is a conflict between the amount of money the custodial parent wants, and the amount the non-custodial parent is willing to give. It is pretty much inevitable that both groups will feel hard done by. The taskforce's research indicates that custodial parents have been paying more than the true cost of their younger children for quite a while, and the changes seek to address that.

Those who lose out will claim that it is unfair. Nothing new there.

Sylvia Else.

Tired,
Thankyou for attempting to stereotype myself (EG “Everything you write smacks of this”). I certainly hope that you don’t teach children stereotypes such as “Mothers are custodial, Fathers are non-custodial”’

Cotter, Sylivia Else
I would think it difficult to develop a standard cost for a child, as each child is different, but one of the greatest problems with the present Child Support system is that the father pays the money, but has no say in how that money is spent. The mother alone decides the way the money is spent. The mother can spend all the money each month, with no savings for the child’s later education, sports, possible illness or emergencies etc. The father does not know any of this.

The Task Force recommendations, (if implemented), would act as the government’s system for Child Support, but it is a standardised or “one size fits all” type system. Personally I think there are many flaws in the recommendations. There are no sliding scales, it assumes there will be a custodial parent and a non-custodial parent, (which doesn’t really equate to Shared Parenting Responsibility), it does not take into account property settlements etc.

But parents can develop their own Child Support system which can be incorporated it into a Parenting Plan and lodged with the court. They can develop a budget for the child, which is know by both the mother and the father.

There are going to be Family Relationship Centres established in the future, and because of those centres, it will be interesting to see how many couples choose the government’s standardised or "one size fits all" Child Support system, or develop their own. This is assuming that they do decide to separate. If there is proper counselling and mediation, they may decide not to.

Tired wrote "Until we as a society can actually DEFINE 'in the best interests of children' ...

Actually Tired, society probably does want to define 'in the best interest of children' but Law will not 'codify' it.I, your usual force-separated father from my child, taken to my case to high court on the basis family court is not a 'competent jurisdiction' and want high court to legally recognize the anatomical and physiological entity we all have called the emotional brain, which in children is the predominant expression before intellectual brain (neocortex) takes over in teenage to adulthood. High court has taken to block the case, becuase once its done it will turn this family court-child support abuse on its head.

Now, in law everything is broken down to its smallest parts. For example take a situation where two people come to agreement so one performs to produce a result needed for another, and whom gets returns like payment as agreed. Simple, right? Now go into a Library and look at Contract Law, which is what its legally codified into, shelves of books and seen books exceed 600 pages. Now look for a law book on 'best interest of child'... even after all day search, its the big wall of nothing.

Even I, as a medical officer, have scientific information that would fill a 600 page text book on this, I guess. Why would our learned justices all of a sudden look blank, and prevent legal codification of this fundamental aspect that affects all of us, all the time, and most important in childhood. Even McInnes I think would concede to this.

I am learning about the judicial process, make my mistakes, note lawyers are happy to give expert advice but will not represent me, I assess it as a fear, but I have to succeed, my little child girl is depending on it for a happier future.

Sam

Timkins - violence is a significant but not overwhelming factor in divorce and separation, and has to be taken into account; and most violence IS perpetrated by males, not just in the family but in the wider society.

Tired - shared custody CAN work, and doesn't have to mean kids have no home: it can mean they have two. I share custody of my two children equally with their mother and they are happy and stable and they would HATE to lose out on one of us. Of course they want us to be together, but most kids want that, often even when there HAS been violence.

For it to work the parents have to be able to bury the hatchet and THEMSELVES put the chilren's welfare ahead of their own. this is not easy, but it can be done if the adults are reasonable and sensible AND if there is no history of violence or other abuse.

Similarly with child support. It is a fallback system, after all. If the parents can work out finances between them they don't NEED the Child Support system. E.g., I don't pay child support by any formula... I don't even consider it child support. I just pay what needs to be paid - things such as school uniforms, shoes, fees, clothes, whatever - and pay more than she does cos I can afford it and they're my kids too.

So obviously there is a need for the system in situations involving violence and abuse... but I never understand why more people - men and women - can't get their sh#t together and just work it out for the kids' interests

The reality is, if ordinary people can't put the kids' interests first, how can a bureaucratic system?

if the Government REALLY cared about kids' interests it would ensure that all families - single and dual parent - had an adequate standard of living regardless of how much child support they were getting

Sam,

Even if it's true that society wants what is in the best interest of the child to be codified, the apparent agreement is illusory. The moment you try to codify it, you'll discover that there is disagreement on the detail. Indeed, if both parents of a child were to agree on what constituted the child's best interest, then there would be no problem, regardless of whether such things are codified or not. It is exactly because people disagree that there's a problem.

Timkins.

I don't think it's fair to describe the scheme as being 'one size fits all'. After all, it's not prescribing a particular amount of money to be paid in all circumstances, but is a formula designed to capture information about the incomes of the parents, and the amount of care each provides. Paragraph 0.6.5, item 5, discusses how various proportions of care are handled.

My main technical concern about the scheme is the way that it contains bands for both incomes, and amounts of care. I have the same concern with taxation bands. I can't see any good reason for using bands, rather than continuous variation. In the case of amounts of care, the existence of bands creates barriers to increased contact (this was noted in the report), because one extra night's contact can dramatically alter the child-support level. This fact alone brings the fairness of the level of child support into question on either side of the threshold.

The scheme still allows for departures from the assessment for special circumstances. Although I can understand the invidual desire to be able to present their case for a modification of the assessment just because they perceive it as unfair, allowing that would result in huge disruption to the lives of the people concerned, and an unmanageable, and expensive, administrative burden.

I understand that payer's want some control over expenditure, but it would inevitably lead to disputes. To a limited degree, there is already scope for the paying parent to direct payments for specific purposes. One example is that money be used to pay for private health insurance.

Sylvia Else,
I don’t think the government’s system is the only system, as parents can form their own agreements. Those agreements can be informal, or they can be lodged with the court and become formalised and binding.

It is interesting to see where the Task Force recommendations have come from, as I believe they are not unique. It appears that they are basically a version of an “Income Shares Model”, http://www.guidelineeconomics.com/fightcase/incomeshares.htm and there are various versions of this model in a number of states in the US. There are probably just as many complaints in the US about Child Support as there are in Australia, but the main US complaints seem to be as follows:-

1. It can lead to Child Support payments that are beyond the requirements of the child, and the custodial parent then begins to live off the Child Support payment. The Child Support payment then becomes a form of alimony, which is not the origional intention.
2. The system can become a government imposed system, and government agencies can begin to pry into the lives of the parties involved. It becomes a “Big Brother” type of system.

Now the last may become very relevant with the recent recommendations, as those recommendations now take into consideration the incomes of both parents (and perhaps the incomes of their partners also). So there is the very real potential for government to be keeping many records on many people, but no one has any real idea if those records are accurate.

So people can just form a budget for the child, and work out their own agreements. If they can’t work out their own agreements, they will have to use the government’s system.

But as stated earlier in postings, in the future we will have a system that moves away from the custodial and non-custodial parent scenario, and the future system will probably emphasise shared parenting. So the old formulas will not work in the new scenario

Timkins,

Certainly the government has not sort to impose the child support formula on any couple who have no desire for the government to intervene, and who are not receiving government support. In practice, many parents are receiving Family Tax Benefit, and the requirement that Centrelink approve agreements before they can be registered has been an obstacle. The report recommends that Centrelink no longer have to approve agreements - but that it will simply pay FTB as if the agreement had not been made.

On the results of the income shares model, the primary area of contention appears to centre around whether the payer should have to pay based on the child's requirements, or the child's cost. These are different. A child's requirement is presumably that amount that is necessary to avoid the child living in poverty (according to some definition of poverty). This does not accord with the objective of having the child share in the standard of living of both parents. The income shares model attempts to determine how much would be spent on the child in an intact family, and treats that as the child's cost.

I think the Big Brother concern is overstated. The incomes used for the calculation are taxable incomes, as assessed by the tax office. Only in special cases would the CSA start looking at whether the payer's capacity to pay is not properly reflected in the taxable income.

A new partner's income is not considered in any circumstance, even though that new partner may be contributing to the costs of any children of the partnership. This leads to the rather strange looking recommendation 1.19 in paragraph 9.10.1. Yet the alternative of involving the new partner's income is clearly unacceptable, and presumably the taskforce thought so too.

Even with shared care, the system still involves payments. For example, with 50% care by each parent, in uncomplicated cases (no new children), the parent with the higher income will pay support to the parent with the lower income.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else,
I would agree with the idea that the new recommendations are very complex, and perhaps too complex. I would also agree with the idea that dependant children are basically defined as being as people who are below the age of 18.

Now political powers in government came come and go (every 3 years in Australia), and those political powers can adjust or manipulate whatever formulas they want if they have the power to do so. (ie. Power in the House of Representatives and the Senate, which means that they have power over the Courts)

Now if the child is primarily dependant on their parents, then the parents should begin to determine what is in their child’s best interest, not the government.

It becomes a rather contentious issue I suppose, who has the best interests of the child. At present I would go for the parents, as they should be closer to the child, and should know more about their children, and not the government.

This is why I would also go for mutually agreed Parenting Plans which incorporate the financial aspect of the child’s life, rather than government imposed standardised systems.

Cotter, you ask about mens groups talking about the hip-pocket. Maybe you are missing the strong emphasis on shared parenting coming from the mens groups. From my perspective that topic gets a much higher focus.

The "Hip Pocket" is certainly relevant. There is a strong view amongst many that the various child support payments assocated with custody (Child support, Family Tax benefit, parenting payments, rent assistance etc) are a factor in the reluctance of a lot of mothers to cooperate with shared parenting. Maybe nobody is making a fortune from this stuff but in some cases it is a nice alternative to the unemployment benefits. It is clear that a parent who wants to undermine shared parenting has a lot of options to do so, removing financial incentives to do so might help.

I favor a system that provides less benefits to parents who choose not to cooperate with the other parent having residency. At the moment the system does not appear to take any account of the circumstances and decisions which led to one parent having most of the residency.

For all those who speak about child safety please have a look at the Abused Child Trust web site stats -

http://www.abusedchildtrust.com.au/content/child_abuse_2.asp#
What types of families are involved in abuse and neglect?
Family types involved in substantiated abuse and neglect:
27% two parent - natural families

23% two parent - other families

37% single female parent families

5% single male parent families

Also have a look at reports on the National Child Protection Clearinghouse esp "Who abuses children?" http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/sheets/rs7.pdf and "Notifications, investigations and substantiations" http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/cws/cpa02-03/cpa02-03-c02.pdf

Timkins

"This is why I would also go for mutually agreed Parenting Plans which incorporate the financial aspect of the child’s life, rather than government imposed standardised systems."

Such a cooperative approach would certainly be preferable. But what are you going to do when the parents can't agree?

Are there many liable parents out there who think it would be reasonable to pay more? Are there many payee parents who consider that they're getting too much?

Under the current system, parents can agree, and leave the CSA out of it entirely. It doesn't seem to happen very often.

Sylvia.

Sylvia,
What to do if parents can’t agree? I guess they will have to use the government’s system. But as I have tried to reason earlier, I think it advisable that they develop their own system to finance their children, as it should be more in tune with each child’s needs, and if too many parents start to use the government’s system, then the government’s system can become a bureaucratic monster (and I think that agencies such as CSA could already be described as such).

As was stated by the Committee of Enquiry into child custody, the present Family Law systems can become too confrontational, where a Family Law solicitor is often the first person to be contacted, but in reality a mediator should be the first person to be contacted.

The Family Relationship Centres, (if they operate properly), should be proving counselling and mediation, and a part of this should be providing example Parenting Plans that encourage Shared Parenting. I have never heard of a Family Law solicitor offering their client an example Parenting Plan.

What to do with the 100,000’s of couples who have already separated but don’t have mutually agreed Parenting Plans? Difficult area that, but hopefully those parents will begin to develop Parenting Plans in time.

With 1 in 3 children now not living with both natural parents, it has produced a social disaster. It has adversely affected an enormous number of children and families, and it becomes an exercise in going back and trying to fix this social disaster.

I'm one of Sylvia's (a)s, or rather I was, having in the end gained custody of my child. It's amusing to hear people spout on about the "rights of the children", but from the perspective of one who paid huge sums of money to a chain-smoking alcoholic mother, I didn't see any emphasis on the welfare of my child. I saw coppers running around like servants when "she" said I had been violent (when in fact it was she who was violent and was eventually caught and put on a Good Behaviour Bond).

I have a lot of sympathy for custodial parents who try to raise kids on pathetic child support amounts, where the non-sustodial parent escapes the full amount thewy should be paying. The formula is "sick" and needs fixing, badly, especially for PAYE workers.

Tired,

I have Family Court approved shared custody of my son - it works fine and he is thriving on both parent's love. Access to both parents is essentially "in the best interest of the child". If the Family Court interprets "best interest" to mean "father removal", then it serves a professional elite and a twisted agenda for social engineering - it does not serve the children.

Your niave statement that "children cannot be divided up like property" is a deceptive smokescreen repeatedly used to argue against shared parenting. In the current system children ARE taken like property away from one of their loving parents (90% fathers). This denial of the child's right to contact with both parents constitutes state driven abuse of children, and has damaged millions of children world wide - as verified by a wealth of research on the effects of fatherlessness.

Contrary to your statement, my son is the big winner in our shared parenting situation.

But to get back to the issue under discussion, shared parenting also reduces dependence on welfare. I talk from experience - both myself and my ex have been able to maintain a career as well as parent our child. It’s a win-win situation for the child, the parents, and as well, the taxpayer.

Tired, I'd like to add my complete agreement to Silversurfers most recent post.

We were doing an almost 50/50 shared parenting (via consent orders) and it was working well. True it did limit my ex's access to welfare to some extent and limited both of us in other ways but being a parent does that.

The ex decided to move away from the area and set to work involving my son in the need for change. I've had to consent to reduction in parenting of my son because of the harm being done to him and myself by the ongoing dispute. We all loose.

Bring on some connection between actions and consequences in this stuff and kids will be a lot better off (as well as parents and taxpayers).

R0bert

I agree with the recent posts that emphasise the desirability of 'shared parenting' of children following relationship breakdown. In my own case, with a combination of good will, shared commitment to the priority of the interests of our kids, and negotiation, I have an arrangement that works well for my kids, me and my ex.

Of course, this has meant that I've had to change priorities in other areas of my life, but overall I have to say that I'm personally much happier these days than when I was enduring a stifling and loveless marriage for the sake of the kids, mortgage and 'career'. And I figure that I'm spending about as much on my kids now as I would if they lived with me full-time.

While we didn't involve any lawyers or courts, we did avail ourselves of the free Family Court counselling service following the breakdown of the marriage, and based our respective contributions to the care of our children on the CSA formula. Neither of us is on 'welfare'.

When my ex needed to move to another city for work and family reasons, I eventually decided that the best thing for my kids' interests and my own was that I would move closer to them, which I did. Having done so, I now realise what a hopeless rut I was in, in my previous job and lifestyle.

Sure, I accept that my case is probably unusually happy, although I know many other separated parents who have come to mutually satisfactory arrangements. Indeed, my best mate is a full-time parent who has his young daughters with him in a house he rents around the corner from the house that he still co-owns with his ex-partner, who lives there. He receives a parenting allowance, child support from her, and drives a taxi on Sundays.

With a modicum of good will and real concern for the interests of the children, it is very possible for sensible people to negotiate satisfactory outcomes following relationship breakdown. Unfortunately, this forum's advocates tend to argue from antagonistic positions that don't allow for negotiated compromise.

Yes you make some good points Garra.

But I will add …

It's also often stated that only parents that can get along amicably can make shared parenting work. This is also a myth. Parent alienation produces and then ensures ongoing conflict, while shared parenting helps the inevitable divorce conflict to evaporate over time.

I speak from personal experience, which is confirmed by other parents' stories and common sense -

I could barely talk to my ex after the solicitors had finished plundering our divorce settlement - but we put simple practices in place to ease the hand-over of our child. State education and support could easily encourage such practices, and this would reduce personal and community tension. After a few years of shared parenting we are now able to talk with greater depth of cooperation. If either of us had been denied access to our child I doubt that there would be anything but resent and anger. We now have a life time relationship mutually focused on 'the best interest of the child'. This would have been denied to us and our son if not for a shared parenting agreement.

Just to emphasise my point again - for a while after the legal battle I would literally be sick to my stomach when I heard her voice. There was a great deal of conflict and no communication - yet shared parenting allowed both the adults' and the child's wounds to heal in time.

Government education and training should support this outcome.

I envy those parents with workable shared parenting arrangements.

In my case this was not possible, but did end up with residency of 2 of my 3 children, while continuing to pay significant child support for the youngest. Several years down the track, I pay uni fees for one child, and 19k in child support for a child that costs less than 8k. I look forward to the day I can start paying off my debts and start saving for retirement. Perhaps happiness will follow.

The 'best interests of the child' is a SMOKE SCREEN. It is only ever invoked by squabbling parents who promote the interests of the child only to the extent that those interests are conincident with and promote the interests of the warring parents. Its inherently political. When the father's rights guys do it, it is no less cynical and self serving than the mothers rights crowd. VERY TRANSPARENT.

Parents do see children as possessions, otherwise those parents would not be fighting over who gets CUSTODY. Custody infers possession, ergo ownership.

The custodial parents may be living in poverty ( however poverty is defined in our rich, high standard of living, western culture) and may be income poor but they are FAMILY RICH. They have the daily contact and share in the growth of their children in a way that the family POOR non-custodial parent can only dream about.

The blatant manipulation of the concepts of a childs best interests coupled with the obviously emotive ploys and manipulation of both sides of this battle for possession of the children, is getting a bit tired.

l think that men and women see this reality in the world and it underpins the fact that men and women see modern relationships as 'entanglements' and 'too much trouble' and just boycott the whole thing. It may have something to do with why the birth rate is in free fall, why marriage has halved in the last 20 years and why divorce has doubled over the same period.

trade215, good post. I'm don't completely agree with your view about custody and ownership but don't have a neat description of a better description. I may feel a sense of ownership about my role in my son's life and my relationship to him but don't feel that I own him.

I have learned to "talk the talk" about a childs best interests when dealing with this stuff. Those who control the structure insist on the phrase being the overriding concept and if you want to have a chance of being listened to you have to phrase stuff in that language.

Having said that I have taken the effort to make my reservations about the abuse of the idea clear when the opportunity arises.

The arrangements all families make are a balance of all of the needs of those involved. Sometimes the balance will be skewed but almost never will one set of needs totally negate another set. Until the industry recognises that parents lives are also important and that a "childs best interest" is but one of the considerations which much be accounted for in reaching a decision the phrase will stay.

R0bert

When Trade’s comments are taken in the context of the current 90-10 ownership stats, he makes a lot of sense.

Elspeth McInnes opening statement illustrates the difficulty she, Elspeth, faces in trying to come to terms with this topic – I refer to “the taskforce recommendations would mean having less to live on in the household where they spend most of their time.”

As a divorced father of 2 daughters who has lived through the entire process of maintenance payments, manipulated access visits, arranging my dealings with CSA and my ex-wife, let me advise Elspeth – The only reason children live on less in the one household is because of the total blindness and absolute stupidity of the historic Australian Family Law and its application through to biased and warped family court.

If you could see further than the end of your nose, Elspeth, you would understand the best solution for children of divorced parents is equal access – and not left to being used as the pawns in the corrupt games mothers like to play to tyrannise their ex-partners.

EQUAL access to both parents is what is in the REAL best interests of the children. Treating both parents as responsible EQUALS from the beginning, instead of starting with a presumption that men are second class citizens incapable of rearing their own children, is what solves the problem Elspeth McInnes is alluding to.

It is only the stupidity of the “labor party ” enacted (need we say any more) child custody laws which created this problem in the first place. At least we do not need to suffer it in the future – so no holding back – lets get real and support the idea of “equality in parenting” – as we should.

For those of you that have an obsession with domestic violence perhaps reading research papers by Dr Sotirios Sarantakos.

Domestic Violence and the Male Victim
http://www.nuancejournal.com.au/documents/three/abstr3.html#saran

Domestic Violence Policies: Where Did We Go Wrong?
http://www.nuancejournal.com.au/documents/three/abstr3.html#saran2

The maxim "In the Best interest of the Child" hides the real fact that it is really in the best interests of the mother not the child! The best interest of the child is really one of those misleading statements designed to stifle debate.

"the "actual economic role of a child support payment" is to increase the standard of living of the recipient household ."
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/2005/gay061505a.htm

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15620401-1242,00.html
Whilst very few fathers would be paying $2558 per month in child support. This amount seems to be rather excessive amount far above what it would cost to provide for a 8 yr old girl.

Who will be the real loser if this amount of child support was bought down to a more realistic level. This amount is more than likely in excess of what some one on the average wage would be paying a month on their mortage!

I have acted as a family lawyer for some years now. I have acted for both men and women. It seems to me that, despite all my suggestions (perfectly considered of course) to my clients -such as "'calling your former partner a "f..ng..pr..or cu.." will not make them see the light and accept your view point" ....and..."if we are arguing about 5% and this equals $20,000, give them half/the lot as this is what it will cost in legals to argue about it" ...and "do you think that he'/she will leave the property/money to your kids or to the cat's home "......sometimes make no difference at all. The parties are itching for a battle.

We (the lawyers) get involved when you (the client) can't agree with someone you once loved and now...can not talk to or even worse, would not spit on. Don't blame us or the system. The reason for the system is to set out a boxing ring in which you can have a fight ..if you could agree, there would be no need for a boxing ring.

Most (not all) people in this debacle are so caught up in their own emotion that the children come last or are used to justify almost any act, fair or not. People who really put their needs last and their kids needs first, are not caught up in this dispute in the first place.

As to the changes to the CSA, what can I say - its an imperfect system to pay for the upkeep of kids when the parents cannot agree as to what is fair or need some rules to assess what it fair. If any of those here can work out a perfect system than sorts out years of emotion splitting one family's assets into two and which involves two so called adults and their offspring - be my guest.

Oh, and Family Law Judges/CSA/us lawyers are not perfect nor have ESP - and unfairness happens - if you want fair - reach an agreement yourselves -otherwise accept the umpires decision.

Aniko,

Your altruism and egalitarianism are admirable. It must feel quite wonderful at the end of the day, to know you represented a child’s best interests.

If only fathers would surrender their homes and pay, and be content on being on call to baby-sit whenever required, there’d be no need for a boxing ring - you could be doing something less adversarial such as conveyancing.

Seeker

I wouldn't judge Aniko too harshly, too quickly.
After all, solicitors interpret their job as "getting the best deal possible for their client". Some let the client choose the path of action and service that choice professionally - but others do suggest some diabolical methods to gain a legal advantage - such as trumped up AVOs.

Aniko is also right that often "The parties are itching for a battle" and " the children come last or are used to justify almost any act, fair or not".

But I don't think it is valid to say that " People who really put their needs last and their kids needs first, are not caught up in this dispute in the first place."

Many times one person is prepared to settle equitably and the other makes unreasonable demands, or refuses one parent access to the kids. The action of the one can force the other into a big sh.t fight that snow balls into adversarial war.

The problem is that relationship break-ups do not belong in the law courts. And a system that is unbalanced and empowers one gender over another provides a formula for adversarial action.

So we CAN partly blame the system, particularly if we view the big picture - that is not, just the solicitors - but policy makers, gender separatists ideologies, weak marriage law, CSA etc. etc. It all empowers the vindictive types with incentive to take as much as possible and to inflict revenge for the failed relationship.

These inequities make it more difficult to "reach an agreement yoursel[f]".

Aniko, what do you think of the governments plan for 63 relationship centres across Australia.

Do you think that it will simply be another step to bypass on the way to the court?

What advice are solicitors likely to give their clients in regard to the centres? - given that their job is to get the best deal for their client.

My opinion is, if they are not gender bias they may reduce the numbers that go to court - if gender blind, they will waste taxpayers money.

I had to laugh at the comments-and the assumption that I act against men. I unfortunately act for parents who have precisely the type of former partners that are complained of - totally vindictive, manipulate loving children into ones who deny their own parent, deny contact and trump up avos. And no, the system is not always fair there. But, then I also act for parents, who gripe when contact is arranged and call it 'babysitting' or when I try and get my client to seek an avo (after coming into my office with a black eye) and they are too scared to go to the Police.

When I get the client who wants to manipulate and objects to contact for no really good reason - I tell them its not on. I do not agree to send letters which I strongly disagree with,and usually it stops right there. In fact, I have been accused of allowing parental abuse in order to ensure contact with kids happens. But 'abuse' is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

The bottom line is that - that its pretty easy to lie and manipulate and until ESP is invented or there are contact police - people who are vindictive or lie are as difficult to regulate and control as are criminals. At best you get some, but some always get away.

I have acted for people who, despite all the provocation etc, thinks of the child and says nothing- why, because no matter what happens, kids usually love their parents and it affects them to hear one parent say anything bad about the other. I have kids who after 8 years of fighting in and out of court, avo's, assualts, breaches etc still say when asked 'what do you wish for ?" the reply is " mum and dad to like each other again..

Notice I rarely say which gender I speak of-it comes from both sides. I notice assumptions being made as to which gender I speak of. And, yes, where one parent compromises or even capitulates, for the sake of peace and for their child; or who make huge lifestyle changes - ARE putting the child's best interest first.

I am all for relationship centres. If they operate so that people can get counselling and learn about being separated parents; Where people learn to cope with grief and loss; Where parents learn to adapt to the new situation and resolve issues without yelling and abuse - then brilliant. Counselling and life skills before seeing a lawyer is a great idea. I just hope that the centres are funded and client's are not a waiting list for weeks to see very busy counsellors and mediators, whilst the angst and emotions stew into nastiness and entrenched positions.

When people who just want to get at their other partner, then all the relationship centres in the world won't help. There are the entrenched 'boxing ring' champs, that no system can fix or repair. And, I use the 'boxing analogy' when you have the entrenched positions. I am always happy when after a bit of advice and thought - with compromise on both sides, neither side wins or loses, but reach a settlement and it never goes to Court. Sometimes it involves more compromise on one side than the other, but in the long run, both parents can get on with their lives and concentrate on being parents to their children.

Thanks Aniko,

I never tried to imply that you only act for men, and from your words you definitely don't appear to have a gender blind spot.

These a lot of sense in what you say.

You said "When I get the client who wants to manipulate and objects to contact for no really good reason - I tell them its not on." Your words convey a lot of decency and professionalism. Unfortunately not all solicitors act the same way - perhaps these are a minority.

I agree that the relationship centres won't work if one or both parents are committed to revenge.

Ultimately a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting enshrined in law would help parent/child alienation and be far cheaper than the relationship centres.

Often this issue is though of as only a concern for fathers, but there are many mothers in that don't have residency - and my conversations with them reveal that some experience similar obstacles to the fathers for continued contact, and CSA debt.

Do you care to comment on your position on shared parenting?
Have any of your clients settled on shared parenting?

aniko, thanks for your great posts. There is a question I have raised on a number of occasions and never had a reply to, one that relates to your post.

Do you know why "lie detection" equipment is not used in court proceedings? Popular commentary puts the accuracy in the high 90's percent wise, operators claim that they can generally spot the tricks used to fool the equipment. Not bombproof but it has to be better than nothing.

Unless there are really good reasons to not use it I would like to see it used on all testimony both on the witness and the lawyer asking the questions (might be a way of spotting the trick questions - the more sophisticated versions of "do you still beat your wife?")

The fear of being caught out might be enough to stop many of the false claims and dishonest testimony.

R0bert

Since the early 1990’s,there has been a definable decline in the living standards, the welfare of children, the increase of drug(s) use, crime rates amongst children. It is not unrealistic to believe there has also been an abuse of the Child Support Agency, the ATO not from the role that they play in enacting legislation but from the manipulation of their responsibilities.

The sadness is, no matter the changes, nothing will change because judges who have supported the manipulation of the CSA and the ATO are still in power. The significant point here is that even the Chief Justice of the High Court has washed his hands of the Family Law Court wherever possible, regardless that the integrity, honesty or legality of the Family Court or the Constitution is concerned. (I don’t blame him but I can’t ever agree with him on this issue)

Contact must be non-negotiable, as is child support. You can’t have one without the other if you do you end up with Nicholson’s Nightmare over again.

The greatest regret is that every one really wants a judicial system that is honest and fair. That contact for the non-custodial person is enshrined even if that means the kids can’t go to private schools. That until there is an opportunity that judges can be investigated for acting outside the law then little will change.

Opinion is clear, there will remain an inequity. Until such time as the Family Court is held accountable for allowing the manipulation of the courts to continue then nothing changes. It is impossible for the Family Court to make honest rulings if parties do not tell truths and for this the guilt remains firmly within Nicholson’s Nightmare if the courts refuse to enforce perjury and perverting justice legislation when it is presented.

The law is not an ass, regardless that it has until recently been lead accordingly. No matter the law until the conduct (not necessarily the rulings) of those that make the judgments are challengeable any good intention by the Senate or Parliament is and will remain just that; a good intention.

Freedom

Shared parenting works really well provided, both parents live close to each other; the children have rooms/their own things in each home; each parent is readily negotiable as to all aspects of parenting eg, changes to routine; both parents are still friends and talk; both parents unite as parents where needed and agree to disagree where neccessary; and the children's input is essential and regarded. Without co-operation, proximity and mutual respect - it tends to fall apart. Some children just don't like living out of two homes, no matter how well the parents agree and sort it out and the parents need to hear this.
As to 'lie detectors' I have no idea as to how well they work. But, given that our police don't use them in this country for detection and prosecution of criminals - one assumes that if lie detectors worked well - the police would be the first to use it. Once the police use it and it appears to work well - hey, why not use it in every court. For now, however, truth is not written on foreheads and if some people are prepared to lie to the tax department, their spouses, their bosses, centrelink etc - why not to the Family Court.

When parents do not agree, no court will change that. The best possible net short term gain a court could make, is to award more money “to the children”.

Seeker,
I’m not sure if a court cannot change the situation if parents cannot agree. If the court is operating under the premise of shared parenting, and a parent does not agree with shared parenting, then it would be up to that parent to present evidence as to why there should not be shared parenting. Of course false allegations would also involve perjury.

But there is evidence to show that the more say and involvement a non-custodial parent (ie the father in the majority of times) has in the upbringing of the child, then the more money they will pay. Quite often they will be paying more than child support, but cases where the father pays more than the required child support are not often reported or acknowledged, as the press will normally concentrate on cases where the father pays less than required child support.

There would also be cases where the father is being blackmailed to pay more than the required child support, or the mother won’t allow him to see the child.

But the recommendations from the taskforce are not that new, (as similar are being used in the US) and the recommendations are also open to rorting, as they may lead to mothers hiding income, or denying the father more contact (or parenting time). Both will require that the father then has to pay more child support, and of course the system does not require the mother to provide proof of purchase, so the child support money can be spent on many things other than the child.