Azliz, I am still waiting for your retraction regarding you supposed origins of my online nickname.

If you read my posts from the start I have regarded 50/50 as a requirement - unless there are extenuating circumstances. I have never once said that men are all victims - nor would I. So kindly stop attempting to twist my words, or indeed put words in my mouth.

I have to say that I am concerned by your mental state - on occasions your posts have been well thought out, and very fair...then the next post you seem to be so vindictive and spiteful towards anyone who doesn't agree with you, or simply chooses not to respond....

The radical 'mood swings' you have shown (from being relatively calm, to completely agressive and spiteful)... I sit here, and wonder if you aren't in some way Bi-Polar? I doubt it is Schitzophrenia...althoug a few of your behaviours do point to this as being a possibility!

Scrap, both yours and chezzie’s posts have been vituperative, vindictive, spiteful and one-eyed consistently and right from the beginning--I guess that means you are not bi-polar. You need someone to tell you how vicious you are being. It is a pity you can’t listen.

How ridiculous to tell me that you are for 50/50 access. I brought that up to show that I consider both sides. It is obvious you consider the male side, what are you trying to prove?--the remark is so absolutely absurd given the context of my criticism of you being biased.

You don’t have to say that ‘men are all victims’ you simply need all your posts to aggressively push the male barrow without concession or any look at the other side. They do.

I did ask you and chezzie if 50/50 is what you gave to your ex’s—as neither of you answered I take that to mean no.

I am not for 50/50 in all cases. As I have stated in previous posts if a man wants 50/50 after separation he should have it before. That is the only way that it can be fair.

Otherwise it is a huge disruption for the child and an insult to a mother who has sacrificed her career to look after the child. For the man that’s having his cake and eating it—it is an enormous advantage to have a fully developed career, it is unfair not to acknowledge that. I am all for 50/50 when there was that prior to split up or something close to 50/50. Otherwise at least there should be a transition phase.

I appreciate that at the moment in a case where there has been close to 50/50 the courts will still decide to place the child with one parent or the other. I am not against bringing in a 50/50 presumption in these circumstances.

I am against 50/50 before a child is weaned. A man cannot breastfeed and bottle-feeding breast milk has far too many drawbacks. A man should not even get every second weekend during this period (up to 8-10 months old) but only daytime access beginning with 2 hourly and increasing slowly—otherwise a common outcome will be the failure of the breastfeeding relationship. Maybe you and Chez put your children on formula from birth and don’t care that physicians feel breastfeeding is in the best interests of the child. Biology does make a difference. Next you will be demanding that the baby be given shared access from conception.

The best place for the solution to custody is to stop the marriages breaking up in the first place and I have already discussed some solutions for that in previous posts.

LOL Aziliz! Calm down, stand back and have a look at what you are saying.

Aren't you lucky to be the only perfect mother on the planet?! And how lucky the rest of us are to be on the receiving end of such BALANCED INSIGHT.

Aziliz's statement that she is "not against bringing in a 50/50 presumption" but is "against 50/50 before a child is weaned" is one of few she has made that I can stomach. I have avoided this discussion because of her dominance.

The original shared parenting bill included the word 'rebuttable' which also implies flexibility to suit the parents' and child needs. Temporary arrangements are fine so long as the father / child relationship is preserved.

(I refer to the father / child relationship because that is the one normally at risk - but not always)

What 'drawbacks' of the bottle are you talking about, Aziliz? The fact that maybe a father has an opportunity to bond with his child during feeding?
By your logic, a mother has the right to exclude the father for as long as she is breastfeeding, which can be up to 2 years, or longer.
How is that in the 'best interests' of the child? PLENTY of healthy children have been raised on the bottle, whether it be filled with formula or breastmilk. Physically, they're going to be fine. Emotionally, they have to deal with their mother's emotions regarding HER separation with the father