I fully support advances in the Family Law and Shared Parenting arrangements.

I do however have some doubts in regards to this story.

1. '$400 million will be spent in setting up 65 family relationship centres'
How much will be spent maintaining and staffing them?

2. Who will staff them?
With what qualifications and experience in areas of domestic violence, mens health, family support services, etc.

3.'If enacted, funded and supported by community education, it will bring enormous benefits to mothers, fathers and children.' Who is going to fund it? The 'community'?, does that mean not-for-profit organisations, like 'Angli-care' etc.
Is this just another cop out by the government to place responsibility back on the "community' and untrained volunteers?

4. Finally the terminology used, ie 'brayings of feminist groups' and 'aspirations of right-thinking men and women' reveals to me a certain 'patriarcal ideology'

My parents divorced when I was 2. When I was 8 years old the court ruled that I would be under shared parenting, and I have been the better for it. Nothing can replace not only having, but knowing, and growing up with my mother AND my father- despite the fact that they have (since I was 2) always lived at least 4 hrs flight from one another.

With exceptions of course (in the case of abuse/inability to properly care for the child), this whole "a child only needs a constant mum and a holiday dad" thing is ridiculous. Bring on the shared responsibility!

Coming from a broken home, I think I have some expertise in understanding the positives/negatives to shared or otherwise parenting.

As written, opposition to shared parenting, in a nutshell claims:
- Single-parent (see mother) situations promote ‘stability’(NACLC)
- Mediation is dangerous in some separation circumstances (lawyer groups)
- Redistribution of resources is ineffective as women are ‘overborne’ in negotiation (feminist groups)

Of these the first is simply incorrect. As the writer suggests, stability in relationships is more important to children that place of abode. Perhaps in days gone by the cost of two rooms was prohibitive and left children wanting in the basics (a bed instead of a mattress on the floor) but for every child’s wish to have things of comfort, I can attest to a greater desire for the company and guidance of a good parent meaning more.

The second two platforms have some merit. In cases, one or the other spouse (not always men) have too much anger, instability of personality or even depression to warrant a shared environment. This then usually ties in with the difficulties in negotiation of resource sharing. If one party is weak or unreasonable, inequity is likely.

However, it should be the first hope of all people that a child has access to both parents. Not because of gender issues (needing both male and female role models) but because of the chance that the loss could damage the child with the cutting of a strong bond with one of their parents.

With regard to the aim of negotiating shared responsibility, there comes the availability of mediation. As long as the assistance is impartial (unlike current adversarial models) and capable of monitoring both interests, to ensure even-handed results, who – other than lawyers – could argue?

Generally the proposal, in it’s infant state, seems more likely to benefit the child than the current regime. And that must be seen as good for all.

That the author is a mediator by profession should not be overlooked. Perhaps a second opinion from a non-interested professional would be appropriate...

Nice to see we can agree Yng...

Love the article and the concepts behind it.

I have to admit to a very high level of scepticism about the likelyhood of it working though.

My experience with Relationships Australia has left me with the very strong impression that many in the mediation field are so tied in to the entrenced bias that they don't see it.

Likewise while residency is tied to welfare and child support regardless of how the residency is obtained some will never accept shared parenting which costs them money.

Simply cut all financial support to parents who refuse to cooperate with shared parenting arrangements which share the costs and benefits of parenting between the parents and much of the problem will be fixed. There are already provisions in place to deal with the child abuse so no excuse there. I include moving too far away from the area where the family formerly lived to do shared parenting in the category of refusing to cooperate with shared parenting.

Of course shared parenting makes it much harder for parents to do a clean out during the property settlement and places responsibility on both parents to care for and finacially support their child, not an outcome that some like much.

R0bert

Following the breakdown of my marriage I rented a house close to the old family home which the Ex got. I stayed within walking distance of my girls and eventually bought a house, within walking distance between the home and school.

My girls were better parented and have grown into well balanced adults due to the benefits of the direct interaction with both the Ex and I than had there been just one of us in their lives.

Robert agree – the $$ do get in the way. That is just another challenge and best if it can be separated from custody (how is the tough one). My experience is not current but past in terms of custodial permissions etc, obviously the relationship with the girls is strong and ongoing. Had I had a choice, obviously I would have rather not gone through it all but having done so leaves me convinced from the experience that Children need / are entitled to the companionship, mentoring, guidance, interaction, inspiration, love and comfort of both parents, not one.

As YngNLuvnIt and Reason suggested from their experiences and I would confirm from mine. The law should support the ideal of equality of parenting and work from an assumption that Children require and are best served, developmentally, from the ongoing interaction with both parents, whenever and wherever possible

I am so glad to see the end of feminist tyranny finally emerging. We have seen women claiming equality but refusing to take it up for years now, it seems obvious to me that a women is not exactly the same as a man, all that equality should mean (without it losing it meaning) is equality before the law. And men have had none of that for years now. Laws should be revoked if they refer to either sex.

I would also point out that the gender issues which one of the posters pointed out as not being his/her concern, are an integral part of psychologies assessment of many disorders (where the child lacked either parent as a gender role model). this is accepted by all who are not influenced by feminism.

I too am from a broken family although I do not think that this places me in any better position to comment, one experience aint worth much compared to a statistical analysis of all experiences, just as a filter to understand the debate.

I just hope that these new relationship centres (not the ones the article talks about) that provide training pre-marriage into what to expect in a marriage and how to raise kids acceptably (something totally lost to most of the population in reletivist australia (my ways as good as yours)) are made mandatory for a legal union or marriage to have the legal benifits of inheritance, divorce rights etc. Its time people were taught how to take responsibility for their actions again.

Witness the two 14 yearold murdering girls, why not halve thier sentence and make the parents do the other half. all delinquency would soon stop then, as people have been saying for some time now!

fide mae, probably off topic but relevant to some extent.

I do have some concern with to much finger pointing at parents (the parents of the two 14 year old suspects etc) while parents do no have rights before the law regarding their children.

It's not reasonable to hold someone accountable for something when their hands have been tied behind their backs in regard to managing the situation. Clearly plenty of parents not even trying to discipline their kids, others stuck in the middle of residency issues find that discipline is a tool used to turn kids against the other parent (gee daddy is way too harsh with you etc). Others have the heartbreak of the government paying kids to move out of home if the kid does not like discipline.

Time to give parents back the rights and responsibilities of raising their children and for the government to stop interfering except where clear avbuse or neglect is occuring.

R0bert

Robert.

as I said regarding experience as a filter: I don't have the experience as a parent to have the filter to see with.

but what you say makes sense, so long as you include the education of parents as to what is acceptable, what is likely to harm and hinder etc.

Your point about government interference is well taken, if not experienced (by me).

I still think that after your issues are resolved parents should still be held accountable. It seems unlikely that the parents of the two 14 year olds could not have seen the problems and at least tried to deal with it. If they had left home as a result of this dealing with, then clearly the parents could no longer be held accountable.

I no longer profess to be Christian, but the words of JC still ring true in that trauma filled misnomer, the arena called the Family Court of Australia.

"Suffer the little children..." Suffer also do the families of the vanquished, and for far too long. The only victors it seems, were the legal profession.

I have been a Sole Parent for 13 yrs now. No contact during that time in any shape or form from the missing parent, other than a letter (Death Threat) in 2000 after someone in CSA/Centrelink 'stuffed up'. CSA is long overdue for a Royal Commission and a major overhaul. It is with no small degree of trepidation I see the FCA going through the motions of a reshuffle.

What will they actually do other than move deck chairs on the 'Titanic'? The relevant legislation FLA, CSA etc needs to be repealed and more caring humanist models put in their places.

I would have given my right arm for 'shared parenting' just to let my children know the other parent is flesh and blood and not a memory.

So prescriptive is the legislation (now & then) it beggars belief!

We missed the most important thing - FAMILY. It is always the breakdown to the "...best interests of the Child(ren)...", but we have negated the FAMILY in all of it so far. Individualist not pluralist.

I fail to see what benefits these new centres will bring, until the legislation adresses the family alone.

The current Family Court system is a national scandal. I want to know why I can't see my three children?
A pox on all the vultures who feed off the system.

Without a presumption of shared parenting these changes to Family Law may go the way of similar 'recommendations' made in 1995/6 - the divorce industry manoeuvred around these and kids continue to suffer enforced 'parentdectomy'.

Access to both loving parents is essentially in the best interest of the child. If the Family Court interprets "best interest" to mean "father removal", then it does not serve the children.

I have Family Court approved shared custody (residency) of my son - it works fine and he is thriving on both parent's love.

Conflict between parents ought not impede a shared parenting arrangement. Most divorce involves conflict, and the adversarial legal system generates more. After our divorce settlement, there was a great deal of conflict and no communication - yet shared parenting allowed wounds to heal over time.

We put simple practices in place to ease the hand-over of our child. State education and support could easily encourage similar practices - perhaps through the new relationship centres. After a few years of shared parenting we are now able to talk with greater depth of cooperation.

If either of us had been denied access to our child I doubt that there would be anything but resent and anger. We now have a life time relationship mutually focused on 'the best interest of the child'. This would have been denied to parents and child if not for a shared parenting agreement.

My father doesn't have anything to do with me, but I miss having a father, and I must say, the presence of a father in a child's life is I think a crucial element in the mix.

However, the trend toward shared parenting as its called seems to be to give lots of leverage to fathers which are non-resident parents.

Time will tell how fair this situation is.

Talking about the factions opposing shared parenting...

1: Motivation
Basically the opposition to 50-50 shared parenting is all about $$$. This is a huge industry, and almost everybody in it are women. Even Accredited specialist Family Law lawyers are 50% women in NSW (so much for the feminist claim that the law is made for men and by men! Ha! ) Then the Child support agancy (C$A), DoCS, social workers in general, counsellors (especially Relationships Australia), Cenrelink, and so on and so on... All these poeople's careers and power come from maintaining the current high levels of conflict, litigation, C$A enforcement and creating dysfunctional households that require ongoing support from the nanny-state. These are all female-dominated and feminist controlled industries.

2: The factions
Johhny Howard is not stupid. When he wanted to prevent us becoming a republic, he cleverly framed the referendum question to split the republican vote... 1 : Do you want a Republic with a president John Howard selects?, or 2: do you just want to leave it how it is.

Not surprisingly, many republicans voted against the proposal.

The feminists have an unholy alliance of social workers, lawyers, journalists, policy officers and so on... who often have quite different agendas.

Howard has tried to split them with the "shared parenting" because this is clearly in child's best interest (watch this space in about a week) but the feminists oppose it as it prevents women from having all the power. They want the current approach which is simply Women get the kids... and whoever gets the kids gets everything else...

This split that Howard has attempted is struggling. The feminists still have the numbers against the 'best interest of the kids' and the 'loving dads groups' and the 'struggling second-wives club' combined...

Greetings from North Shore City, Auckland, New Zealand.

Firstly

Thank-you Michael for your words. Your encouragement has had good affect on me and many others for many years.

I have lived "Equal" Parenting in time since 1997

I have a Son Javan born in 1995

16March05 I finally got a Family Court Order called an "Equal" Parenting Order.

Althought the FC has been helpful over the years I beleive the slow progress has damaged our Son and promoted bad blood between his Mother and I.

Several years ago I put together "10 Complaints" about the process of the NZ Family Court. It was done from my experience and was open and honist.

Boshier our Chief Family Court Judge returned the valuable document to me with a turse letter telling me my thoughts were not welcome.

We, NZ have lost ground with "Equal" Parenting in the "Care of Childrens Act". The act specifically removes the teeth of a bench warrent to enforce detail in an "Equal" Parenting Order.

My experience has proved the value of "Equal" Parenting but underlined the fact that NZ, and other countries have a long way to go to actually achieve it for our Kids.

Please feel free to visit our website and to participate in the Forums offered

Onward
Jim

I would have to say that I admire any and all non custodial parents who like Col Rouge has put in the hard yards, to ensure their children have as close as is possible to a normal life.

In the end regardless of the court system, it is the parents of the children who can make a real difference, by deciding on equal contact time or as close to equal as is possible.

In this, one of many emotive areas, I do not believe in a "one size fits all" solution, and feel that every case should be judged on individual merit, i.e. some fathers are abusive, also some mothers are equally so, alcohol, drug, moral,and financial situation should be reviewed before such a descion is made. Having said that I believe this new situation is a huge step forward for estranged fathers.

The only issue I do agree with the PM on is that in an ideal world, children should have both parents, to guide and nurture them to adulthood.

Shared parenting baloney.
Shared parenting is what occured before the divorce when the parents were loving towards each other and to their children because it was the childen's minds and emotions that mattered.
Now the political and the State meaning and the Family Courts meaning is the smiley 'cheese' baloney meaning to the opposing chalk meaning above.
Sharing parenting to them is the physical meaning where the body of the argument is sawed or chopped down the middle from head to toe or across the middle in the waste of the argument. Some parents will get the head and some the bottom half. Some will be armless and some not so harmless in sharing their children with someone they hate. What will be the result: a sham where the children grow up to hate both parents instead of just one.

What you all fail to realise, is that this is John Howards little baby, and liberal party policy will rule, and none of our opinions matter one tiny little bit. Michael Green was a QC, and now he is a mediator, its his buisness to say what will make him the most money.

Every issue with regard to Family Law and Child Support should be put to public referendum, which has never happened, not even in 1975, when the FLAct was created.

The whole point of what I am saying is, no matter what anyone says, this is going through parliament, and will become law. I can only say it will be one big waste of taxpayers funds. If it doesn't by some chance get through, who is going to pay for money already spent in development of FRC.......

Well said "Albie Manton in Darwin",FAMILY. I have recently done some parenting courses where they talked about two families.

I have experienced shared parenting and it worked well(not legally binding)until the other parent worked out she would lose out in money. I stilled payed her child during the shared parenting as she threaten to not allow it to happen. For me all I wanted was to allow my son who was 6 at the time to see me on a regular basis to form a bond. Ever since the break in shared parenting it has been conflict after conflict.

When I was a kid I believed what my parents said. If one said something about the other I at least had the ability to judge myself as I had both parents.

Give kids and non custodial parents a fair go I say.

I have been luckier than a lot of other fathers but it has certainly damaged my son and I. If things do not change I fear the future.

for so-called 'shared parenting' to work, both former partners must be on such terms that they'd be able to share the responsibility - and the actual day-to-day details of executing this wonderous new social experiment.

many former partners do not want to have anything more to do with the person they spurned, or the the one who 'kicked them out'. some have a hard enough time getting regular support payments out of them, let alone regular commitment to time and space. others discover they were never the biological parent of the child they'd been supporting.

reform of the way we manage relationship breakups, and in particular the property arrangements that follow - and children do impact on the way property is distributed post-factum - should be much more than just "share it".

much is made of "power" and "abuse" in the debates. a few point out that the woman has too much power here, or the guy gets screwed there, and so on. reasonableness and maturity *cannot* be legislated into existence.

lawyers will not be strangers to relationship post-mortems for the forseeable future. people will fight with each other, out of anger, hurt, justice, and whatever else. many relationships break up because of a lack of maturity - which cannot be solved by legislation or mediation.

much more ought to be done *before* people get themselves into the mess in the first place. but realistically, people will continue to be who they are. children will get used as weapons, will be victimised, will be mistreated. more will not.

much of the way relationships are understood at the moment bares little relationship to reality. some things have changed. some things haven't. relationships don't last as long as they used to. that ought to be accomodated in the way we shape our society. trying to fight it /after/ the horse has bolted is stupid.

if we want to encourage more mature resolutions, we ought to encourage more mature relationships in the first place. and begin by encouraging more mature people. the things we expect do matter.

"The need revealed by women’s groups for funding and resources to support abused women and children is well established and accepted."

How is it well established? What information are you relying on Mr Green to support the making of that statement given the years of propaganda pumped out by women's groups seeking taxpayer funding. As a person who practiced law Mr Green you should know that courts fail to make proper determinations of guilt with respect to women who allege abuse. So because there is no official government interest in establing the true extent of abuse perpetrated on women in the community there is no way of evaluating what their needs are.

[Post deleted for abuse and poster suspended]

I grew up without a father {since 4yo|, with no guidelines on 'man' issues, it was easy to be anti-social as a teenager.
Now 50yo, I've been taking anti-depressive tablets for years, especially after, the 'part time waitress' de-facto Ex, employed a Lawyer after starting another relationship, to get what she could.
I have worked permanently since 15yo, and weekends, to earn an 'average wage’, her and my female lawyer agreed to her demands of;
Her maintaining Custody of our children, only 1 night p.w. at my place. Half my large Superannuation in CASH {no tax or waiting till 65}.More than half of Assets {the house valued at over inflated 2004 prices},all regardless of my mortgage repayments and contributions.
The Govt's relationship's centre's will not fix anything when ;
"No-Fault" separations teaches No Accountability to women, it provides Judges with a "easy norm" to be bias in favour of women and makes Lawyer's very rich by escalating conflict, "all in the children's best interest" , I think not !

Maelorin, it sounds like you're saying "it's not going to work, so let's not even try". Like someone else said, its going to happen whether we like it or not, but I really think this is a good thing (and yes I'm a chick). With the high rates of divorce in this country, we are potentially spurning a generation of people who have only known their dad's every 2nd weekend of their life (at best). Kids need their mums and dads, if this has even a sliver or a chance of working, lets go for it.

Politicians, useless lawyers. Lawyers, useless politicians.

'In 10 years' time will there be any work left for the generalist family lawyer? '

Yep thats all that matters doesn't it, you lot will find a way to keep screwing everyone.

'Radical feminism has done a disservice to women.'

It's done more of a disservice to men and society in general

“The government is to be congratulated on having the courage and energy to effect a new system of family law and practice so soundly based on reliable research and the aspirations of right-thinking men and women “

What politicians, economists, lawyers and beaurucrats. Any fool can see that they are the problem.

I brought my kids up until they went their own ways, but still got screwed by my ex and her womens network. I and both my children slept in a small caravan for two years because the local housing scheme refused to give men with children housing. My ex left taking the kids, took me to court within 3 months, to get me off our property and transfered to her name, then sold up gave me the kids and went to England.

Every time I tried to do something through the courts, I was stopped by costs. No lawyer every gave me 1 minute of their time freely or helped in any way.

All parents should be entitled to and society should expect them to jointly bring up their children, even if they aren't still together. In abuse cases, thats different. But a women being abusive emotionally, verbally and physically, towards their ex, is certainly psychological abuse of the children. Just look at the state of our society, to see where the current approach has placed us.

Dodger, these 'vultures' are more correctly called parasites. Vultures can be shooed away, whereas parasites have to be physically removed.

Like ticks they feed off you until they bleed you white, or drop off when their new BMW, or next overseas trip is paid for.

Hang in there mate - changes will occur!

GlenWriter, "What will be the result: a sham where the children grow up to hate both parents instead of just one. " - possibly sometimes but the current system can too easily leave kids growing up hating not only both parents but themselves as well. Kids growing up with the most manipulative parent are going to eventually see through the sham but maybe not unlearn the things they learned about the other parent.

Whatever we do some kids are going to be harmed. Family breakup and residency disputes are not a prefered option, they are a consequence of humans being falable creatures who don't always get it right.
The questions we need to ask are
- what are the options?
- what will do the least harm all round?
- how can we minimise the harm?

Shared parenting is not perfect and I don't think that any of us who support it would claim that it is. What we are saying is that in most cases it is a much better option than the winner (and her solicitor) takes all scenario that we have now which encourages manipulation of children and ongoing conflict between the parents.

I'm just back from a great weekend camping with my son, we had a ball and he made some new friends. A joy for both my son and I that we would both miss out on if his time with me was too curtailed, an experience that he just won't get with his mother because it's not something she does. We both contribute in different ways to our sons life and I think his life is the richer and more balanced for it than his life would be if he saw me for a few hours once a fortnight.

R0bert

what i am saying is you cannot prescribe solutions to relationship problems.

shared custody will only work, can only work, if the parents choose to make it work. telling people this is how things will be, unless they do x, y, or z, will not resolve conflicts. it shouldn't take a degree in conflict resolution to figure that out.

for the record, i'm a qualified lawyer. i have a pretty good idea of how the system works and doesn't work at the moment. i happen to be divorced with a child between us. and know at least one family court justice.

the introduction of mediation and counselling services as a prequel to having these issues determined by a court was a huge improvement. contrary to popular opinion, lawyers do not like litigation. no one really wins in ocurt. unfortunately, sometimes the only way to resolve conflicts is to have a third person decide how to resolve it.

everyone would like to resolve conflicts without involving lawyers. much cheaper and probably much faster too. but a lot of people cannot, for many reasons.

the shared residence idea is an ideologically motivated policy that does not have universal support. making the system less flexible and more prescriptive will not help. people already have the option of sharing the care of their children 50:50 - it is not often done. sometimes it's just impossible.

having it as an explicit option, that does make sense.

but the problems many people have with family law are largely matters of procedure and resources. not enough of the latter, and perhaps too much of the former.

conflict resolution is a complicated and stressful process. particularly when the aggrieved parties are angry at each other.

In his younger years (until around 45), my father had an awful alcohol problem. I begged my Mother to leave him and get a divorce.

I am glad that she stayed with him - since she loved him so much - and she strove to maintain the family unit.

I am better off for Mum staying with Dad.

Prior to Dad's death (only 52 years), it was my privilege to spend many special hours with he and Mum.

I wish people would try more to keep families together
Cheers
Kay

maelorin, I agree that both parties have to co-operate to make shared parenting work as well as it can. Again though you have to look at what you are comparing it to.

I'm not sure what research is around but I have a suspicion that even bad shared parenting where bad behaviour by one parent is unlikely to be rewarded with extra residency may lead to better outcomes for children than unnecessary sole parenting achieved through the bloody mindedness of the parent gaining the residency.

As I have pointed out earlier I think we need to remove the financial incentives promoting the sole parent model. Certainly help those who are left with kids through the other parents lack of interest but give nothing for those who take actions which make shared parenting impossible. I do not believe there should be any Family Tax Benefit, child support, rent assistance etc, single parents pensions etc paid to a resident parent when shared parenting is not in place because of the actions and choices of that parent.

Also make a loss of residency a likely outcome for ongoing patterns of behaviour which hinder shared parentings success - if one parent chooses to relocate away from the area let them be the one to suffer the consequences not their children and the other parent. If one parent deliberately or consistantly breaches residency arrangements let them face loss of residency. Kids will feel some pain during the transition but maybe they can be raised by someone who cares more about them than other agenda's.

Prescription will not work in all situations but the current situation appears to leave many women believing that the 80/20 split and control over their kids lives are their right and the way things should be. A percentage of those might see things differently if shared parenting is the norm rather than the exception and a percentage more might find scamming the system is just to much work with to little reward.

R0bert

I was going to comment with a testimonial against all the worst horrors and nightmares of the previous system.

But I decided I'd grown through the hardships of our family break up and a long period of interrupted-contact. My children are now grown up, active and responsible adults.

Both seem to have the relationships they want with their parents.

They make up their own minds as to the type and depth of the relationship they want. That changes...often.

They seem happy.

I'm happy and their mother? Well I don't really know. We now follow different paths in life and only have contact when there is a significant event in our childrens lives.

On the strength of Mr Green's article I'd favour the implementation of shared parenting. Stuff the influence of all negativity.

To those who are suffering the trial of non-contact, have hope. I was given a piece of adivce as soon as I regained contact with my children. The counsellor I spoke with suggested I merely give my children fun whenever I had contact with them. She didn't mean spending on funparks or presents.

I see my children (23 & 21)daily. They chose to live with me 11 years ago after seven years of very difficult and infrequent contact.

I grew up without a father {since 4yo}|, with no guidelines on 'man' issues, it was easy to be anti-social as a teenager.
Now 50yo, I've been taking anti-depressive tablets for years, especially after, the 'part time waitress' de-facto Ex, employed a Lawyer to get what she could, after starting another relationship.
I have worked permanently since 15yo and weekends to earn an 'average wage’, her and my female lawyer agreed to her demands of;
Her maintaining Custody of our children, only 1 night p.w. at my place. Half my large Superannuation in CASH {no tax or waiting till 65}.More than half of Assets {the house valued at over inflated 2004 prices},all regardless of my mortgage repayments and contributions.
The Govt's relationship's centre's will not fix anything when ;
"No-Fault" separations teaches No Accountability to women, it provides Judges with a "easy norm" to be bias in favour of women and makes Lawyer's very rich by escalating conflict, "all in the children's best interest" , I think not !

It is beyond me how you can say "no mediator or mediation agency will conduct a mediation session when family relationships are seriously affected by violence or abuse". Good god. When I went to mediation my ex would sit there and chat about sailing amongst other things with the mediator, refuse to make any agreements, and then jostle me and spit on me in the car park. (in front of our daughter). But maybe that's not 'serious'? Maybe you wouldn't mind going through the same thing?

And I certainly did not feel powerful. While he was getting all 'matey' with the mediator, and the mediator would lecture me about recognising my ex's birthday etc, keeping the family rituals going.

I initiated us going to mediation because all negotiations around shared care were failing because he didn't want to negotiate. He wanted her to be my sole responsibility, apart from the times that he wanted her and at those times she was to be made immediately available.

And what is this about "braying .... rooted in anxiety about self preservation". I thought "braying" was what donkey's did? Is that what you intended to imply? Over something as trivial as "anxiety about self preservation?".

I had anxiety about self-preservation. I had had enough of 'sharing control of the family, the home and financial support'. That was why we were separated. He had me living in a humpy in the bush washing nappies in a bucket and sanding the rust out of his precious car by hand. I never saw any money. He made me go and beg to welfare agencies - they were more likely to give to me because I was a woman. Needless to say he never paid any child support. I went on to be educated and employed and support our daughter. He's had more kids and still doesn't work.

I know many women who have gone through similar things - so don't you dare imply that we are making a fuss about nothing. There's nothing wrong with shared care, but there is with pretending that disadvantage to women and sexism don't exist. Women more powerful - you have got to be kidding. Our biological reality as live givers should be respected.

And I think that a lot of the pressure should be taken off parents by proper provision of state support for children - good, free education, including uniforms, shoes, meals and books; decent, affordable housing; medical and dental care. Then parents can stop fighting each other for the material provision for kids and get on with parenting.

Linda, not to deny your right to feel offended by your ex’s bad behaviour and not to excuse him in any way, not all poor interpersonal performance or intransigence or deflecting of the issue originates from the male. Females are quite callable of similar negative actions and deceptions in front of mediators, like my ex who would agreed when with the mediators then phone me after and say she had changed her mind.

The Process needs to focus on the needs fo the child.

An assumption of equality of parenting responsibility is the starting point.

Divergence from that as the base assumption, to something more particularly loaded where poor parenting has been displayed is appropriate. However, we should start from the point of view that parents are equal and not with the point of view that one parent has a particularly close relationship which needs special consideration and the other parent does not have the relationship but should be forced to pay for the special consideration (as in the original separation assumptions of the 1980/1990s).

Reading some of the posts here it is obvious, there are too much pain and too many damaged lives already to allow the old system to perpetuate its legacy of misery. Children critically need both mum and dad and the “system” should adopt that as its primary assumption and focus on that as its primary goal.

the processes need to consider the needs and interests of *all* parties. it is not in the interests of the child for "the system" to dictate to the parents.

rather than making the system more inflexible, it ought to have the capacity to look behind what the parties say in conferences and the courtroom.

the interests of children are important, but not ever relationship involves children. and not all children involved are those of the relationship.

property is a major source of conflict between separating couples. many of whom consider or treat the children like possessions. something that is exacerbated by the way child maintenance operates.

it may be more constructive to address the flaws in the two parts of the process that cause the most grief - the inability to look behind the curtain and the intractability of the maintenance system.

particularly now that males can be liable to pay tens of thousands of dollars for children that are not biologically thiers - which is supposedly the basis of their obligation. and the inability to test the validity of the mothers assertion. or be reimbursed for monies fraudulently taken to pay maintenance for children who are not theirs.

with some one in ten children, possibly more, not actually fatherd by the partner of the mother, this alone causes unecessary aggravation.

It is beyond me how a misandrist feminist like Linda Seaborn, a Tasmanian mothers' rights activist and writer for the socialist Green Left Weekly, can represent any unbiased logical and reasoned position on this matter.

It is in her interests financially (follow the money) to maintain the current sexist and unfair status quo that results in mothers getting custody of children (92%) and all the financial benefits that follow. They do not want this to change because they do not want the feeding trough removed.

Linda knows, but won't tell you, this is about money for mothers, not about fairness or the best interests of the children. It used be that shy little children hide behind their mothers skirts, but nowadays it is mothers who hide behind the children.

To do this they have manufactured a false fear of abuse and violence for children (mimicking the many false allegations by mothers designed to win strategic and tactical advantage in family law and child support cases).

This fear is trotted out and applied to ALL SEPARATED FATHERS in an attempt to tar ALL such Dads with the sins of a very small minority. This is wrong. Fathers are not trying to do this in respect to the greater number of bad mothers who abuse and neglect their children.

Linda likes to play the victim card; it is a well-trod feminist tactic to win sympathy and support. But she is not a victim; she is living the life she wants at someone elses' expense. That is wrong. Linda should be responsible for the consequences of her motivations, her thinking, her decisions/choices and her actions.

It is in a child's best interests to know, have contact with and live with BOTH parents. It is very wrong for man-hating feminists and mothers' rights activists to try and say ALL fathers are bad and abusers. Because of this sexist and biased propaganda many children are hurting because they are being kept from the fathers who love and can protect them.

You will let go of what you love if it is best for them. It seems that the some are letting go for obvious reasons... not to damage the kids.

Leave that to the embittered who deliberately punish their ex and seek ongoing retribution for unfulfilled fairytale fantasies.

Its very sad and its very true that hell has no fury like a woman scorned. Awful truth, political corrections notwithstanding.

All the divorces observed amongst male cohorts were instigated by their wives who had become dissatisfied with married life, wanting to get back out and re-live their youths before the passage of time clipped their wings. Ties into the the tendency to crap on loyalty and adult-like responsibilities/commitments in the pursuit of selfish interests.

And their ex-wives routinely put them thru the custody/visitation/mediation/lawyer/court grinder.

You are absolutely correct when you say its ALL ABOUT POWER and MONEY.

The power to make someone else suffer.

Custody determines child support which has been very astutely manipulated into ALIMONY by STEALTH.

Thankfully we dont have those outrageous abuses of human rights that exist in the USA known as 'deadbeat dad' laws. Where men, overwhelmingly living in poverty, are imprisoned for child support arrears. They can loose their driver and professional licences. Thats gotta make it easier to earn a dollar. Their liabilities determined by earning potential rather than what they actually take home, which is often not enough (after tax) to meet the imputed liability. Crazy stuff and a warning shot of just how merciless feminists can get.

In Oz, a motivated man, with a basic knowledge of the system, can easily set himself up to effect unilateral control over HIS finances and how they are applied to support. This does not mean he will be irresponsible. It does mean that he can circumvent defacto alimony.

This is the ONLY real way that one can CONTROL their OWN situation and be free of a meddlesome, spiteful, vengeful and sometimes just plain damaged ex. Its the only language they understand and its the only way to ENFORCE EQUALITY and shared parenting. Sad, true and necessary.

The woman who invented "the problem that has no name", Betty Friedan has finally died on her birthday, a couple of days ago. Her timing was almost impeccable. It is now up the living to bury her legacy along with a few more of those early feminists due to expire.

It is encouraging to see men starting to freely acknowledge their pain. Not long ago, some of these very same contributors were either in denial, or felt unable to discuss problems not yet given names. Being men, we accepted labels such as “dead beat dad” much too easily from our loyalty-challenged, boredom-intolerant, money-grabbing, shared-parenting-averse, life-sapping, grudge-holding, vengence-motivated, uterus-wielding, no-fault-divorcing ex’s. No more. Enough is enough. Our children deserve better. We deserve better.

During the little contact time I have with my 11yo daughter, bestowed by “our inequitable, unjust Laws”, she has confided to me she feels peer pressure to “date with boys” as other girls in her class are “doing it”.
I wish to know if our elected representatives wish to “fine” biological dad’s who already have lost more than half their assets, face CSA repayments etc; or the new mate in the Ex’s life?
Feminist groups have told women, men aren't needed to raise kids and the Law has stopped dad’s form seeing their kids, now a generation later kids who were never disciplined are becoming out of control
Now the Govt. wish to fine parents for the children’s lack of discipline and
control, yet parents already face fines, imprisonment or loosing kids if you do!
When fathers have no say in their children’s lives, because the courts told us mother’s are better at raising, then I hope my or any other daughter does not become pregnant or a delinquent as a result of stupid Politicians running our lives.

Dear Michael Green,

There is evidence in dispute against a lot of what you state.

"This is not true and has never been true. No mediator or mediation agency will conduct a mediation session when family relationships are seriously affected by violence or abuse. In such instances, mediation is always seen to be inappropriate. The new family law provisions specifically exclude mediation in such cases."

Personally I have been pushed into mediation over the last 5 years with my abusive ex and that being DESPITE years of domestic violence and child abuse allegations against the father. ANd mediation with an abuser is never a pretty sight - a classic example where I asked we have a clause that says our daughter's interests are put first - eg birthday partys, special events, we will reschedule his fortynight contact to teh following weekend (so he does not lose out), he refused and thunped his fist on the table saying "MY contact is more important than some kids birthday".

Our most recent mediation was about negotiating meeting places and petrol costs - the mediator asked what he would agree on - he said "I ain't agreeing to anything unless SHE drops assault charges". Still with all of this, legal aid turn me down and send me a letter which says I must try mediation again before court - so maybe you should post this research which shows victims of DV are not forced into mediation - because I knwo I am not to only woman who has been forced to mediate with her abuser.

To Womensactiongroup

This is a rather old thread - the latest thread which is entirely pertinent to your argument is at:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4296

I would be interested in your POV. There are some interesting perspectives in the posts to this article and I welcome you to contribute as there are more male posters than female.

Regards