I tried to answer those questions and it was too hard. Children are such hard work, are so incredibly expensive and such an incredibly long term commitment that there's no solution that doesn’t either encourage one or the other parent to give up their responsibilities or jumps on them with jackboots.

Why do parents work that hard for nothing? Parenthood doesn’t supply money it costs masses—there's not all these women on pensions living the life O’Reilly and the unpaid work is still work and damn hard work. There’s no guarantee you’ll still be in their life when they’re three years old nor you won't still be looking after a disabled child when you're 90, no guarantee your children won’t hate you when they grow up. Impossible burdens are placed on parents, then they’re blamed for everything that goes wrong with their children. The greatest punishment you get in life isn’t to be a bad partner but to marry the ‘wrong’ partner, not for sleeping around but for wanting to be a parent, not for ripping people off but for helping someone in trouble being stupid enough to think you will eventually get something back for your trouble. Any agreement you make with your partner is worth nothing as they can change their mind anytime and you’re completely stuffed, it’s just damage control as everything spirals out of control and your children suffer.

The ‘freedom’ of the sexual revolution with its pill and abortion, of no fault divorce and de facto relationships and of working women turns out to be no freedom at all but an obligation with all its own attendant horrors. Should we go back to arranged marriages, locking up our daughters until they have the ring on their finger, holding the shotgun to men’s heads to get them to marry and refusing to allow women many rights? The truth is that didn’t work either. Good luck to anyone in government who has to come up with policies to manage this nightmare. For me if I could have it over again I wouldn’t.

I speak form a position of 10 years' experience paying child support. The main problem with the child support system is the lack of accountability as to how the money is spent. My son's mother can elect to spend the least amount possible on our son yet I am compelled to pay her full child support. If the child support was based on a fixed amount equivalent to Austudy, I would be in financial position to spend the additional amount on our son - to his signicant benefit. Under the current system, she pockets the difference.

Child Support is welfare to the mother. It encourages and rewards bad behaviour. Children are its only victims - they would be much better off without it. And so perhaps, would their mothers.

If you doubt this, just take some time to study the CS formula and do some modelling of your own. Yes, I know there is some reform in progress which will amount to a step in the right direction, but that takes nothing away from the points so many estranged fathers are making.

And what of the conservatively estimated figure of 10% paternity fraud, or the 1 in 3 foeti being aborted?

There has been no better time to probe deeper into this covert world of secret women’s business that perpetuates false victim status beyond all available evidence. Just because the state has joined the conspiracy to hide and subvert, does not make our collective denial any more valid.

We are just awakening to the inconvenient statistics on gender violence and abuse. And yet, even there, there is an incredible abundance of wilful denial.

The reason why there are so many howling men on this site and so few women isn’t because they’re having too a good time to bother. So here are some stories from the ‘other side’ to make up.

I worked with ‘A’ in an office attached to his home. ‘A’ broke up his first marriage--his wife, ‘A1’, wanted him to stay. Apart from a short initial period when he paid more than he could afford he didn’t pay ANY child support for his first three children--even when he was earning $120,000 per year and his new wife, ‘A2’ worked full-time too. When A was unemployed, ‘A2’ paid the lawyers fees of $3,000 for the child support court case that ordered ‘A’ need pay no child support (A and A1 had separated pre CSA so weren’t subject to it).

When ‘A’s children by his first marriage visited him ‘A’ would show them all the presents he had bought for his two ‘new’ children (his by A2) and was a very affectionate father with these two. But with his first three, ‘A’ was stern and unaffectionate and would order them to do work around the house and garden or to baby-sit which they meekly obeyed. The difference was extreme.

His new wife, ‘A2’, would shout at them--he always took her side even when ‘A2’ reduced them to tears and accused them of doing things they hadn’t done or were beyond their control. ‘A’ and ‘A2’ were very critical of the three behind their backs.

They had clothes for the children to change into when they visited and then out of before they left. Once they sent the three children home in new clothes and the clothes hadn’t come back on the next visit--‘A’ and ‘A2’ were furious no way was the ex getting anything.

‘A’s ex wife, ‘A1’, remarried a man who resented supporting children who weren’t his own and would beat the boys. ‘A’ behaved with absolute delight when he recounted this story to me as he believed it showed what a failure his ex was.

Cont

It never ceases to astound me - the gender bias of the CSA since its inception.

If I am a female who is the Non Custodial Parent and I do not declare tax or submit tax returns, but still have a legal obligation to pay Child Support (read: still working) I can get away with this.

Put the boot on the other foot though, and CSA will hunt you down like you belong to Al qaeda.

Then while not being "assessable" (due to non lodgement of Tax returns from which to apply the formulae) you (the NCP) pay off your house in quick time and then go on Unemployment benefits (maximum of $256.00 per annum payable as C-S debt at the time) you get the amount you previously owed for the 3 years prior - "written off" your debt to CSA.

Please explain?

Aziliz, the questions you ask are ones which should be taken seriously. They are big issues.

I take the view we should use a default position which has both parents equally involved and responsible for the lives of their children. When for some reason that cannot be made to work then government intervention needs to have as a clear focus protecting the kids from the consequences of the actions of unreasonable parents.

Sometimes that will mean significant shifts from what was in place during the time that parents were together but rarely will the traditional 2 nights a fortnight reflect anything like the situation before a relationship split. As I've said elsewhere a choice by one parent to be a stay at home parent does not mean that the other parent does not do most of the non working hours care.

The value placed on non paid work is always difficult. A starting place might be the persons demonstrated earning capacity prior to having the child.

We need to change the mindeset that seperating women seem to show that the 80/20 residency arrangement, C$A, FTB (A and B) rent assistance, pension etc are some kind of right. Our support should be there only for those who are left with the kids, not those who grab them.

I'd like mandatory paternity testing prior to the first C$A assessement being issued for a child. I do believe that a man should be given a clear choice at an appropriate time regarding his willingness to take on parental responsibilities (while abortion is still an option). The mother can then include in her decision making process the level of support which is available.

R0bert