The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Devaluing children in their 'best interests' > Comments

Devaluing children in their 'best interests' : Comments

By Elspeth McInnes, published 17/6/2005

Elspeth McInnes argues the losers to the new child support recommendations will be the children

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
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.
Posted by trade215, Wednesday, 22 June 2005 1:38:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 22 June 2005 2:28:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When Trade’s comments are taken in the context of the current 90-10 ownership stats, he makes a lot of sense.
Posted by Seeker, Wednesday, 22 June 2005 2:46:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 23 June 2005 8:57:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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!
Posted by Captain Moonlite, Thursday, 23 June 2005 11:12:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by aniko, Monday, 27 June 2005 6:43:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy