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.