I for one would love to hear what the ex Mr aj20 has to say about all this.

firstly seeker turn this into a personal battle if you like, don't expect to me to start slinging cheap one liners at someone i dont know though. i dont think the male parties understand the situation and predicaments they put women in, im not going to say that all women would like to be off centrelink payments, maybe some don't, but there are alot of single mothers who would love to go back to study and work and not receive government payments, i want to go to uni and get a degree only problem is i would have to move away from my ex to do that, which would in turn create more problems, i did find a solution that is going to take me twice as long to complete my diploma, so thats twice as long i have to stay on payments, what exactly do the males in this situation have to sacrifice? wouldnt it make more sense for me to move and get a decent career started so i can provide for our child instead of the government doing it, if the man is leaving the sole responsibility of the child with the mother she should be entitled to do what is necessary to provide for the child. i wouldnt turn down my childs father taking care of our child as long as the care he was giving was suffient, because it would help me in the long run.

aj20

Your circumstance is indicative of many single mothers. But this forum unforunately is dominated by a subjective few with their misogynistic views on single mothers and self appointed authority on divorce issues.

All the best with your studies.

Keep focused on your daughter.

Seeker

You wouldn't happen to be a Liberal politician would you?

Liz

aj20, "if the man is leaving the sole responsibility of the child with the mother she should be entitled to do what is necessary to provide for the child." - agreed.

The bit that gets more difficult is "as long as the care he was giving was suffient" which can easily be changed to "my way or the highway" by some.

I tend to be of the view that the same rules regarding the standard of care which apply to intact families should be used for seperated/divorced families. Would the child be taken away from the parents by the authorities based on the level of care if the parents were still together?

If not then the perceived level of care may not be to the other parents preference but it is within the levels society regards as acceptable. Somewhat stronger protection for kids with divorced parents than parents in intact families by default in that there is a better chance of someone reporting clear neglect or abuse than where the parents are together.

R0bert

You are so right Jason Falinski! Perhaps we should pay women to have abortions instead. OR better still, all poor women (who cannot support themselves and a child) should be neutered. Australia's population my die out but still better that than some women be paid a 'free handout'. Whilst its less than an award wage for raising tomorrow's people, how dare they get this money for the thankless task of doing so much on so little. They should so be blamed for the more complex societal issues (such as drug and alcohol addiction) and villified as much as possible. How dare our Government offer them assistance.

Juanita