cont..Despite knowing this new husband was beating his children, when ‘A’ visited he would have a beer with him and together they dissed ‘A1’.

‘A1’ wanted to be a fulltime mother but under pressure from her new husband she worked fulltime in retail.

‘A1’ hired a hall, arranging a major celebration for daughter’s 16th birthday. ‘A’ asked her what present she wanted(he normally didn’t buy anything). She asked for a double CD worth $50. Behind her back ‘A’and‘A2’ said she was greedy for asking for such an expensive gift. They bought the CDs then burnt a copy, kept the original for themselves and gave the daughter the copy! When she opened the present and realised this she spent the rest of her special party crying. ‘A’ behind her back called her a wimp. He didn’t contribute to the organisation or expense of the party.

Two years later ‘A’s daughter complained ‘A1’was fussing too much over arranging a date for her wedding that suited everyone. ‘A’ advised her to do what she wanted-if everyone loved her they would fit in. So she chose a date. He said he couldn’t come as was invited to a long weekend with ‘A2’s workmates (they were playing StarWars role-playing games and he wouldn’t have missed it for the world because he is such a Star War fan). Not one afternoon off in three days to attend his daughter’s wedding.

When daughter refused to let ‘A’ see his first grandchild ‘A’ said his ex-wife had poisoned her against him. Pfft—men are so stupid.

‘A’ said he’d been a bad father to the first three—he was going to fix it with his two new children. He wasn’t interested in fixing it with the children he’d been a bad father to unless they left 'A1'. He left 'A1' because ‘they fought too much’ and she 'put him under too much pressure to achieve'. ‘A’s second wife put him under even more pressure to achieve and the fights increased when they had two children-the second down's syndrome. ‘A’ said he’d learnt now fighting was a normal part of marriage

Aziliz,

You just described a classic cycle of entitlement and dependence in your story “from the other side”. A’s daughter’s sweet sixteen antics and then marriage at 18, show this. The other details you choose to provide are convenient red herrings. These are surely there to complicate and obfuscate, but also, expose your own biases of observation. After reading it, I remain unconvinced that you were aware of all the facts, or that you chose to share them with us.

There is great irony in your statement “Pfft—men are so stupid”. While it is acceptable that two thirds of marriages are broken up by women “falling out of love”, any man walking out is instantly an ogre. Stuff of fairytales indeed.

Robert, 50/50 custody/access doesn’t leave children used to a fulltime mother experiencing 'the closest' to before separation and few stay-at-home spouses can make the transition to a career without great difficulty. Some men find even every second weekend more childcare than they're used to or want.

Your comment about the working spouse doing the majority of the non working hours care isn't the norm, but quite unusual--even then 50/50 doesn’t address the damage to the career of the stay-at-home spouse.

The only way 50/50 on separation can work fairly for the children and both partners is if there’s a 50/50 share during the marriage.

Taking years off work, choosing low paid work because it fits in better with childrearing or working part-time greatly disadvantages a career. Staying in a job or within a career network is a lot easier than having to start up one from scratch or after a long break. If men want 50/50 on divorce then women would be crazy not to have equal careers to men and minimise time taken off to have children.

Seeker obviously agrees with me on this one as he sees stay-at-home mums as being ‘stuck in a cycle of dependence’ he thinks should be broken. Hello to either external childcare from birth, takeaway food and tramstop homes or everyone working part-time.

Seeker the 18 year old daughter actually married a MAN who was quite a bit older and her father ‘A’ approved of and encouraged him. What about their responsibility? Men shouldn’t chase young girls at all, let alone offer them marriage. They may like having someone to ‘rescue’—but they can destroy the girl's life. Try being a mother breaking that one up.

There are still a lot of women who want to stay at home to raise children but there are far less men who want to support them. Women’s liberation demanding women work is more men’s liberation from having to support their wives and children. Although there are many women who want that career there are even more men who want her to and not be dependent on him.

Aziliz, "There are still a lot of women who want to stay at home to raise children but there are far less men who want to support them." - spot on.

For many women the choice to do the same thing is something they have manouvered and fought for. Few families can afford for both parents to do it so the one who most wants it wins. To then use that to deprive kids of a parent and grab the lions share of family assets after a breakup is seriously wrong.

What do you think should happen with residency when it does occur dad does share in the care? What do you think should happen in those cases where dads have been actively involved in their kids lives and want an ongoing role better than the two nights a fortnight?

Do you really believe that ex's, solicitors, RA and others really give the kids and dads in those kinds of families a fair go when mum is looking to grab the house, car etc during the property settlement and thinking about an alternative to paid employment.

I'm very tired of the mothers groups opposing shared care as a default position because not all dads want it. None come up with serious proposals for the dads who do want it. The idea of a default position is that you move away from it in cases where it can't work.

It's a dishonest smokescreen designed to play on stereotypes rather than an serious attempt to address the issue. About as honest as the same advocates who talk about protecting children by opposing shared care and totally ignore which kind of household has the highest rate of substantiated child abuse and neglect.

Instead of continuing to focus on the cases of men behaving badly how about telling us what think should happen when the men have not done the wrong thing. We all know some men do the wrong thing, what many of us are opposed to is most men being treated as though they are guilty.

R0bert

Pregnancy, childbirth and the first year have more in common with medieval torture chambers than anything a man experiences at work. To say ‘now the children can dress and feed themselves, use a toilet and sleep through the night you can share’ isn’t acknowledging that effort nor the bond and empathy it builds for those early years.

How do you 50/50 share a breastfed child? Would you insist the mother has to express milk for the 50% access of her spouse? How does she avoid mastitis? Or should she wean the baby? And how do you 50/50 share a baby in the womb?

If the child is young and attached to the primary caregiver you shouldn't just ‘break them of the habit’ traumatising them until they ‘adjust’ to being in the father’s care. There should at least be a transition period for the child--only slowly increasing the father’s access.

Is it fair to give the non-primary carer a right to have more of a role in the care of the child after separation while the primary-caregiver will wind up with both less of their children and none of the money? The non-primary caregiver gets the stability of his job and income. What if the result is the child spends more time in external childcare?

What if one doesn't want 50% of the childcare? Pay a nanny?

Robert, clarify what ‘government interventions’ you envision for what ‘unreasonable’ actions. The legal system has enough trouble working with abuse claims. How do you prove it? What if the other parent is lying? What if the child has been ‘coached’ to lie? What if the child is screaming, crying and having nightmares about it—does it count?

The difficulty in proving abuse against a partner is one of the major reasons spouses stay in abusive relationships. It‘s difficult to leave an abusive partner if it means having to leave your children in his custody even for one weekend per fortnight. And no father is refused custody of his children simply because he breaks the arms, ribs and back of the mother.

Seeker/Robert 2nd post later

Aziliz - go away. You do not have the best interests of the children at heart; you do not have the best intersets of the families at heart; you are only here to attempt to inflame conflict.

You have not made a single constructive suggestion in the past few days, and this last one is just laughable!

If the 'mother' didn't want the physical responsibility of breast feeding, she could bottle feed....and if she didn't want the "medieval torture" as you describe it, then she shouldn't have had the baby to start with. Ever heard of contraception? Adoption? Better yet... ABSTINENCE??

If you can't find something contstructive to put forward as an alternative to the current system, don't waste our time any further.