Kalweb,
The situation you describe is not at all atypical. Depending on which survey the data is obtained from (eg. ABS survey data, HILDA survey data etc), then between 25% - 30% of non-custodial fathers will not see their children in the future, and non-custodial fathers constitute about 90% of divorced fathers. There are about 1,000 divorces per week, and about 1,000 children per week are also caught up in this system.

The system that is in place has very little to do with the “best interests of the child”, but much more to do with “money”.

The default position is that the mother has custody of the children, the father gets to spend time with the children every second weekend and half the school holidays (ie the 80/20 system), and the father also pays money to the mother, which is termed Child Support.

Should the father want to spend more time with his children, then he generally has to pay money. He either has to pay money to the mother (ie a form of bribery), or he has to pay money to a Family Law solicitor, who then argues the case in court, but that can take many months or years, and the father is paying out all the way through.

As well as the legal fees payed by the father, the taxpayer also pays out, and the average court case costs the taxpayer about $21,000. Most of this money goes to solicitors, judges etc, and none of it is spent on the children.

So a divorce industry has been created, and some people make money out of it, but very little of it has to do with “the best interests of the child”.

It is a system mostly driven by money, and to my knowledge, no reliable study has ever concluded that this totally abhorrent system, is generally in the “best interest of the child”

Timkins, well said.

Kay, I doubt that your husband's ex has to be especially smart to use the system so effectively. There appears to be so much help out there with lots of social workers, solicitors etc determined to see women as victims and who then do their bit to see that men "fathers who lose custody, but, to some extent, like all of us, you reap what you sew". Does not really matter if the fathers have done the relevant sewing. The tricks that work for the genuinely hard done by work for the lazy and selfish almost as well. Until the decision making process starts to take some account of the actions of the parents in creating the circumstances which lead to "best interest of the child" situations the rorts and harm will continue.

Cheers
R0bert

OH..I see we are on the 'Extremes of Feminism' thread ? :) oops.. no, its a different one..

Kay, I find that scenario (your hubby and ex) so sad.. mostly the denial of access...

Anyway, as a thought, it occurs to me that in the 50s, a single income was enough to provide the basics of life and even pay for a house. So, based on the limited income, house prices remained within the grasp of such income, if they exceeded peoples ability to pay, the obvious would happen, people stop BUYing them.... so, market forces at work.

Then, the women folk decide "We need 'equality' of opportunity" and a bunch of them move into the workforce. So far so good.. 'MORE MONEY' yeehaa...... then.. astute real estate agents note "Hey.. these purchasers are rolling in money now.. HIKE the price of land and homes !"

Now, it takes dual incomes 'just' to pay for the basics of life and buy a home. Hmm.. now what went wrong here ? Seems to me that all the lustre of 'equality' has tarnished under the corrosive impact of 'financial slavery'.

So, now, instead of having one stressed out member of the family who negotiates predatory traffic for an hour each way 260 days a year, we have TWO members... and what of the children ? oh.. forget them... they can bring up themselves... ..

The idea of a man as provider and woman as nurterer might seem 'sexist' to some, but culturally it seems to have worked better than our present situation. Financially we are no better off, health wise, probably worse off, child rearing is 'fitted in' rather than something dedicated to. One ingredient is most important in all this 'committment' and a framework of supportive values which include extended family and a modern equivalent to the 'village'.

BOAZ, it is time for you to come to terms with feminism and the fact that many women don't want to stay home and look after the kids anymore. The best thing you can do right now is show your support for those husbands who choose to stay at home and look after the kids while the wives go to work.

Thanks BD

I really enjoyed your post. I know that the rampart feminists will rant and rave about certain aspects of it. C'est la vie.

If I had been privileged to have children, maybe I would be saying something different from what I am saying.

I think that women should regard pregnancy and childbirth as a privilege and not a right. I think that being a full time mother should be the first thought for mothers.

Coming home from school to the Arnotts Biscuits and milk, peeling the beens and the peas, playing cricket in the backyard, playing with the dog, cleaning our shoes for the next day - and all of the time Mum was there and we were telling her what we had done for the day. We loved it and she loved it.

Yeah Yeah - here they go. We can't afford it. What a load of bulldust. People do not need brand new homes, furniture or appliances. Second bathrooms and toilets are a luxury - not a necessity. Throw-away nappies are not necessary, and are very expensive. Home cooking of hamburgers is very healthy and lots of fun.

Today I purchased two blank project books for the sum of $3.00. I am using them to teach two young children how to be creative. I hand draw the template, and then in writing, I teach them how to draw. I did this for my nieces about five years ago - they have never forgotten it.

Mothering is a choice. Mothering is a responsibility. Mothering is, in today's society - more often than not, lazy and greedy.

Today's women know how to get pregnant. Do they how to be mothers?

Cheers
Kay

Robert,
I would agree that there are many people who will purposely attempt to remove the father from his children. But considering the way the “best interests of the child” is being applied, I think the Family Court is in serious breach of important government legislation.

This would be the government’s Risk Assessment legislation, which has to be applied within any company, or within any organisation in Australia.

Risk Assessment legislation is basically a 2 part process.

1.If a company wants an employee to carry out an important procedure, the company must first carry out a Risk Assessment of that procedure, before the employee actually carries it out. Then, after the initial Risk Assessment has been undertaken and the procedure is believed safe enough, the company can now direct the employee to carry out the prescribed procedure, BUT,

2. The company is still legally required, to carry out further monitoring and Risk Assessments in the future, to see if that procedure still remains safe for the employee at all times. The monitoring and Risk Assessment process is meant to be ongoing.

If a case goes before the Family Court, the Court will hear evidence and make decisions based on that evidence, and will then give directives to the 2 parents, (and indirectly it will give directives to the child also). This is part 1 of the Risk Assessment process, but the Family Court rarely carries out the second part of the process, as it rarely carries out Risk Assessments or monitoring at regular times in the future, to assess whether or not the Court’s directives are adversely affecting the child or it’s parents.

The Family Court would be failing to properly comply with all aspects of Risk Assessment legislation, which would constitute professional negligence by the Family Court.

The author of this article has qualifications in Law, and would be able to determine whether or not the Family Court has been properly carrying out the important Risk Assessment legislation, but I tend to think it very doubtful that the Family Court has been doing so.