Mahatma Duck
You are “amusing”.
You are “neither intelligent nor articulate enough” to present your case positively in an OLO article.
Your comments are from a “Christian patriarch”.
Your comments are “blatant sexism”
Your comments are “Very droll indeed”.
Your comments are “idiotic notion” .
Your comments go “on and on (and on and on and on...)”.
Your claims are “ludicrous”
You favour marriage because "it is patriarchal”.
Your comments are “quack”.
Your comments are “silly”.
You post “reactionary comments”.
You have “suffered a broken relationship”.
Your comments are “coloured by emotional loss: of partners, children, or even perhaps the potentiality of children”
Your comments are to be dismissed as “unuseful.”
Your comments are “sanctimonious bullsh*t.”.
You carry out “flaming",
You are a “tad sensitive”.
Your views can be categorised “somewhere towards the extreme of those espoused by various "men's rights" apologists”,
You “make the classic Anthro 101 error of confusing patriliny with patriarchy, and matriliny with matriarchy.
You're "confusing status and power with descent”
Your comments are not “meaningful dialogue”.
You are a “brass monkey”
You like “scurvy mutinous swabs” that should “taste of the lash and walk the plank!”

Reason
Your views are “ biased”, and “distorted” .
You are “structured around an old, outmoded ideology that gives you power, advantage and seniority over 50% of the population.”
Your “past experience or ideology get in the way of some clear points”.
Your views are “frustrating in their ignorance”.
Your views are “extreme”.
Your statements show “typical superiority complex.”
Your views are “frustrating in their ignorance”.
Your views are “extreme”

Newsroo
You are “completely reactionary”.
You are a “embittered divorce court father”.

Enaj,
You are a “pirate” and a “misogynist”.
You want “to control other people, particularly female people's, life choices.”
You “find it hard to take a joke.”

Spendocrat
Your mind is “clearly already made up”.
You want to gain “dominance over the debate”.
You don’t “Get it?”
Your studies are “selective”.
You have had a “negative personal experience”.
Your “objectivity” is in question.

Timkins, I hardly think calling your studies 'selective' constitutes name-calling. It's a bit of a stretch.

Are you ok? How are things at home? None of us want to insult you, we use certain language to strengthen our points, an important part of debating. And the agressive manner in which you phrase your arguments kind of does leave you open to criticism.

Cheer up mate, none of this is personal.

Arrr... I think someone may have had a tot too many with their lunch today?

Cheer up - "Blokesworld" is on TV tonight!

So Timkins,
What’s your point?

Spendocrat,
You “don’t think”
Your information is “selective”
You carry out “name-calling”
You “stretch” things
You are not “ok”
You “insult” others
You don't not use “certain language to strengthen” your points,
You do not carry out “debate”
You use an “aggressive manner”
You should receive much “criticism”
You malign other poster, then call them “mate”

Mahatma duck
You have had a “tot too many” with your lunch today
You don’t know how to “Cheer up”
You like to watch “Blokesworld” on TV

You call other people on forums many names and malign them, but you don’t answer their questions.

Reason.
You have no “point.”

Whatever someone has said, I can simply repeat it back to them. I can malign them, make up stories about them, call them names, make a whole lot of inferences about them. If I keep saying these things often enough, it becomes brainwashing, and other peoplecan begin to believe it. I can say whatever I like. I don't have to be accurate, and I can be totally subjective regards what I do.

This article deals with the “best interests of the child”. But that is a totally subjective term that is being applied by the courts and other persons, and it is a term that can mean anything.

But based on that term, decisions are being made, that can dramatically affect the child’s life and it’s parents life for many years. The “best interests of the child” deals with health and safety, so it is very much within Risk Assessment legalisation.

If a court (or any other organisation) wants to determine the “best interests of the child”, they have to use a Risk Assessment approach, to help reduce subjectivity and inaccuracy. They are required to do this by legislation, but it is extremely questionable whether that Risk Assessment process is being undertaken by the Family Court.

So without Risk Assessment, people can say whatever they feel like, and then classify it as being the "best interest of the child"

I am the resident parent paying child support to the non-resident parent. I provide the financial and non-financial aspects of child raising ie school support, learning encouragement, personal growth etc for my children. I focus on the needs of the children but due to the non-resident parent having contact 32% of the time and his reduced income due to lack of motivation I still am required to pay him. Child support does not take into account support for children but only the time with the other parent. My children remain clothed in this environment from the op-shop yet the other parent buys new name shoes. Where is there the rules about these situations? I needed to increase hours at work, and took risks for my future and that of the children. Interested in others opinion