Excellent piece. Raises a lot of issues that really deserve to be expanded upon. Makes the connection the family law, IR policies and law and how people live are all intrinsically inter-dependent.

I mostly liked the article and appreciated the attention to the wider aspects of this issue.

Some additions from my perspective
- arrangements and priorities which work for a couple may not be ones which work for individuals. Dad may be willing to pay the price of long hours away from family to help that family get by if he gets time with his kids at the end of the day and has a real role in their upbringing, it can be a different story when his kids are someone he see's occasionally.
- Some of the old award arrangements work against workplace flexibility. I was looking into options recently to allow me to manage prime care of my son. I'm on a nine day fortnight and was looking to see if I could spread my existing hours across 10 days, I was informed that under the award that would be illegal and that I'd have to go part time to get that flexibility.
- things seem to have improved over the last few years but male parenting used to be a bit like the female experience in dealing with some business transactions. Some industry people want to deal with mum and don't take dad seriously. I have the impression that mothers are still a lot more confident about leaving their kids in another mothers care than in a fathers care (easier to get my son to visit friends than to have friends come over), misrepresentation of child abuse is probably the biggy there.
- If we stop the financial incentives to parents who are unwilling to do shared care if we might take some of the pain out this issue. How much harm is done to all concerned before the resident parents realises the extra C$A, FTB, pension, rent assistance etc are not really free money and come at a cost?

R0bert

Nice article Emma. You have tackled a very complex and difficult issue very professionaly. Well done.

It highlights a lot of problems, and hints at others. I think it comes down to whether we like in a society or an economy. One side favours the nuturer, the other the worker.

There is certainly no doubt in my mind that the existing family law arrangements are heavily biased against men, possibly because the laws are based in a ideal 1950's setting, but we live in a totally new century - which I would like to think that traditional gender roles have at least blurred. I know many couples that have reversed breadwinner and nurturer roles quite successfully and their children seem no worse off - in fact even better - than other children.

Of concern is the ongoing emphasis on choice. Whether the Feminist movement was too successful or whether it is just a matter of biology could be debated, but women tend to have considerable freedom in choosing a lifestyle where these choices are not necessarily available to their male counterparts. You've explained this in earning capacity but I think it goes deeper.

Anyway, a good thought-provoking piece. Thanks.

"Families need the option of shared responsibility and equal parenting time before relationships break down, to ever hope to equitably have it after."

This statement is a furphy.

Apart from work and financial commitments 'Maternal Gatekeeping' is the largest factor inhibiting father involvement.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/06/12/gatekeeping/index.html

As children grow and develope their parenting requirements change. To support the idea that just because fathers were not involved in the earlier stages of a child's developement, then they should not be involved when the children are older, inhibits children from becoming involved with their fathers as they grow older.

Interestingly feminists support the concept of equality, yet fail to support shared parenting. Shared parenting will not suit everyones circumstances, but should be the starting point of negotiation. Fathers are the ones after separation and divorce who will see less of their children than when they were in a relationship.

Interestingly shared parenting would allow mothers more time to participate in the work force and help reduce child care costs, by having fathers take a more active parenting role, that is if mothers are prepared to let them.

Good effort. Sort of touches on aparently broad perspective. Then bottle necks the thing. Its bleeding agenda all over the place. But, still, good writing.

Most striking example is the way it defines 'care' and 'rearing' of children. Only looking at half the picture, namely, the hands on bit. Ignores the unseen contribution going on behind closed doors everywhere. Thats obviously agenda driven.

As previous poster said, some of the biggest obstacles to traditional parenting arrangements come from mothers themselves. Understandable that mums are gonna have a hard time cutting the figurative umbilical. However, this is a major impediment to true shared parenting and its omission from discussion appears disingenuous.

The connections to IR and social agenda like family friendly employers are brilliantly tenuous and l salute the way you managed to work it into a discussion about pig headed divorcees who obviously cared enuff about the best interests of the kids to bust up the family and bludgeon the poor little ones in their personal battles.

I found the article to be extremely biased. For example, the comment is made that:

"A policy research paper for the Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) reveals what most of us already knew: "men find that it is difficult to fit family around the demands of work. Most men agreed they did not find enough time for their families"".

In actual fact what the policy statement (in the Executive Summary) says is:

"Men find that it is difficult to fit family around the demands of work. Most men agreed they did not find enough time for their families: 'You try to be there as much as you can, but you can't be.'"

The last sentence puts an entirely different slant on the situation. However this final sentence obviously did not suit the agenda of Emma Simone. Therefore it was simply left out of her article.

The rest of the article is in the same vein.

Regards

John