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.