<As I understand it; calculations for child support (ranging from 17 to 30% of income, depending on number of children and amount of income) are done *after an amount for self maintenance is deducted (about $15,000 per annum or perhaps more, per adult income) and both parents are responsible for maintenance - either in time caring for them or financially.

HRS - how much do you think it would cost you to support your children if they were with you?">

Pynchme.

Research shows that the cost of children increases after divorce separation, this is because the non-custodial parent mainly dads have to be able to provide infrastructure etc so that they can have contact.

http://espace.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:37518

<Changing societal expectations about the level of involvement of fathers in child rearing activities has highlighted the need to understand the costs facing usually male non-resident parents in having contact with their children. Costs of contact are found to be high. For contact with one child for 20 per cent of the year, costs of contact represent about 40 per cent of the costs of that same child in an intact couple household with a medium income and more than half of the costs of that child in a household with low income. Household infrastructure and transportation is the reason for high costs. One implication of this finding is that the total cost of children substantially increases when parents separate.>

Pynchme, some expansion may be in order. I'm probably off topic but that happens.

My preference would be for shared care. I think I function better as a parent when I get some down time from work and parenting. I cope without it but think I do better with a different mix. I think that my sons mother does bring some beneficial stuff to his life that I don't do as well at.

The time my ex spends with our son is her choice not mine. I've tried to encourage more time together for them.

I don't think any parent has the right to exclude the other parent from a childs life except where there is an externally substantiated risk to the child. There is to much opportunity for our own biases to creep in along with self interest in some cases (impact on FTB, child support etc).

R0bert

I wonder what would happen if they wrote an article asking for female power to be cut?

;)

JamesH the reason why Eva Cox wrote the article was because 35 years ago

1. women were excluded from the senior branches of the public service
2. women received 2/3 of the male wage
3. married women could not hold permanant positions in the public service
4. access to the contraceptive pill was restricted to married women
5. there was no single parent pension

Despite the fact that there are more women in higher education than men, women are still not on many boards of directors and women still receive 83% of male earnings there is still a long way to go to reach equality

billie, I was hoping that the article was written because the "trad workplace" does not serve the needs of a society with a large proportion of families where both parents work. It does not serve the needs of a society with significant numbers of single parents. It does not serve the needs of the prime breadwinner in families where one parent is stay at home if the breadwinner wants to be a hands on parent well.

There are things that we can do differently which if done well may actually help business and could certainly help with the infrastructure and environmental issues facing governments (and the community).

We could also consider how well the current structure of school hours and terms fits the needs of our current society. Maybe there are some better things which we could do on that front as well.

Many of our employment patterns come from a time when almost all families had two parents in the home with one having day to day care of the children and the other earning the family income. The patterns come from a time where few jobs could be done away from the employer's premise's, technology has canged that for many.

Those conditions are no longer the norm so we should revise the patterns we use for work and schooling to see what can be done better.

R0bert

Billie, if women are earning 83% of the male wage, then why isn't business, employers sacking men and hiring only women?

It is not as cut and dried as you present. The main reason that men earn more than women is because they(men) spend more time at work than women (on average). Research shows that married men tend to be the highest wage/salary earners.

Case in point is that male GP's earn more than female GP's, because female GP's are more likely to work part-time, refuse to go on call or work weekends etc.

Once people achieve a certain level of employment any higher positions will mean increased working hours, like for example a CEO might be putting in 80-100 hours of work a week. So there goes any family or social life.

Perhaps women are better at choosing the cost-benefit analysis, weighing up the benefits and the down side to being employed in higher paid positions.

Oh! by the way last time I looked at the stats, 67% of wage/salaried earners, earnt less than the average wage. This was from the ABS own figures.