PALEIF, I agree with the last part of your post and I like opening doors for others (both male and female).

I'm new school enough that I don't like unnecessary imposition of gender roles. I want a world where men and women can both make choices with as few external restrictions as possible.

I don't get my fuel at a cheaper price than a women, I don't get a cheaper airfare, I'm on the same pay scales as my female co-workers. Hard for me to see why my gender should require me to be the one to carry the cost for someone elses lifestyle choices.

I'll stand for those who appear to be physically less capable of standing than I am on public transport but I don't assume that women are somehow less capable than I am.

People generally don't break up by playing the system but many use the system to their advantage when they do break up and from what I understand often one partner does not know that it is coming.

They keep hoping that they will be able to work through the problems in the relationship, they might take their marriage vows more seriously than the other party does, they may see checking their legal options as a betrayal of the relationship or just not have any comprehension of the mine field they face.

If you don't agree with men sitting on welfare and leaving mothers to pay all the costs how are you when it's women sitting on welfare and leaving fathers to pay all the costs?

I've played an active part in my sons life right from the start. I've working full time and done much of the care outside of work hours.
I disagree with a system that assumes because of my gender I'm less important in my sons life than his mother.

I don't accept that the restrictions that lead my direct parenting role to be outside work hours (but still an every day role) could somehow mean that a few visits a year should be OK.

R0bert

I would oppose any parent to somehow getting financial compensation for not seeing his/her children. It is an absurdity. Likewise, I do oppose Aboriginals having obtained land under the claim of being traditional land (secret land) and it has traditional values, then next flog of the land for mining, etc. You simply do not sell land that is sacred!
If the world was perfect (100%) every child would live with both parents, but this is an illusion. When therefore due to misfortune, such as untimely death by car accident, children lose the breadwinner in the family, then we as a society should not rob those children of a decent life. You cannot have that the surviving parent goes to work with perhaps having a youngest child at 3 months old, and other young children. Anyone who proposes such a nonsense simply doesn’t understand the importance of children to be cared for by their own parent at such tender age.
It is however another thing if a female decides to deliberately get pregnant as to be able to live of social security. Over the decades I came across plenty doing so. Every couple of years they have another child, to secure future social security payments. And, by being on social security they usually can get LEGAL AID FUNDING.
I was involved in one case where the women had a new car, lived with her mother and had three children getting ample of child support, and yet never worked one day, to my knowledge.
Hence, those are abuses where society is not helping out but rather are, so to say, taken for a ride.
The-notorious-group-the-BLACKSHIRTS wanted to introduce that if one of the parents died the surviving parent immediately remarried or would loose the children. Hardly the kind of solution to give to a grieving parent having lost their partner in life to loose also the children unless he/she immediately remarries.
Our Constitution was based upon caring for our fellowman such as pensioners, the ill and the paupers. Well, just check how much the Federal Government did in over 100-years for paupers

It is nonsense to argue that young children are better of with mothers, as this is gender bias!
As for children under 7 (it is 10) to have a say in where the are going to live, time and again the judge use this (manipulate) to hand-down order he/she was going to hand down anyhow, if they don’t like it they ignore it! Simple as that.

As for someone appearing for another person in Court, in the State of Victoria, for example, you have the “Instruments Act”, where a person can appoint someone under POWER OF ATTORNEY or ENDURING POWER OF ATTORNEY. Technically the person can then conduct litigation on behalf of one or more persons, regardless of not being a lawyer. While Section 118 of the Constitution provides for recognition of State laws, federal judges at times ignore to allow for a person appearing under the Powers of Attorney to conduct a case, while other judges do allow for this. Constitutionally however they are in breach of Section 118 if they fail to allow for this. Also, in 1985 I created the document “ADDRESS TO THE COURT” and in 2003 I published a book; INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & ADDRESS TO THE COURT, A book on CD, making litigation a more level playing field,
ISBN 0-9580569-7-8 (After 1-1-2007; ISBN 978-0-9580569-7-7
So, a person who has problems to convey to the Court orally details can by this type it all up before hand, with or without the assistance of a lawyer, law student, or friend, and then file it in Court prior to the hearing. That way much of the pressure to attend to a hearing will evaporate as such and many have succeeded just by filing the document having the case thrown-out from onset, where it exposes legal “technical” problems for the case to proceed.

Mr Gerritt
and Robert
Firstly Mr Gerritt thanks! so much for your advise. I called the Attorney General ACT office last week however apparenlty its very much up to the judge. I Dont like our chances but will try the Power AT.
I never said welfare isnt good for the TRUELY needing. Just people who PLAN to 'live off it."
Robert
Its wonderful to hear some men are still gentleman!
Good for you.
I have travelled with this lady to court and she has a cane.
I dont normally travel much by public transport and it was a shock!. A real eye opener.
Young blokes sitting while little old ;ladies stand.
I was SO cross I contacted QLD rail upon our return.
Dont even START me on that subgect I felt like kicking them up the bum!
Again if a child is a baby MOST times they are better with Mummy until at least five BUT not always if Mummy is a druggie or drug which is quite a bit sadly now.
Welfare IS to blame.
Most of my friends in their second marraiges actually dont BOTHER asking for maintance from their x husbands etc.
However if a lady is NOT in a position to fund everything then of course the x should help his kids.
Maintance is VERY little anyway and not enough to raise a child.
Best not have them if you cant afford them is my advise.
Other than that EACH case is different but amoung my friends NONE get maintance and they USUALLY end up paying the kids air faires and pocket money to vist Dad twice a year. Most of the Dads are re marrired and struggling to pay the new familes fees.
Sad fact of life is money IS important I guess so make sure your marry for love the first time and sensibilty and sercurity the second time for the kids sake if nothing else I guess.
I am SURE your one of the good Dads.

Yes palif I agree that young ones today lack respect, however, some of this has been caused by the equality argument.

As an example I have always been brought up to respect my elders and be a gentalman towards women however I have been abused by women on several occations for simply opening a door at a shop. I have had comments from women like "don't you think I an capable of doing that for myself".

You see the world has gone mad and most of todays changes have been brought about by the 'do gooders' of society and as sad as it is we no longer live in the world we used to and we just simply have to get used to it.

Young people have an entirely different agender to day. They have no commitments, little ambition, no care for their future. Today they plan their working lives around their social lives and here we have the do gooders telling us that if we work 50 hours we are way over worked. Tell me, how can a young person get ahead in life if the spend every cent they earn, don't want to work hard and have littel or no plans for their future retirement.

Look out for the next generation to follow because they will be working every second day and won't work overtime. They will also have no inheritence so as to speak.
rehctub

palif with further regards to your recent posting how can you possibly say that maintinance is very litte when the very topic of my posting is that the way it is calculated, in my opinion, is unfair and devides our children into rich or poor.

Under the present system a non-custodial parent earning 100K + per year with three children in child support pays child suport in the order of around $10,000 per year per child or $200 per week while a similar sinario with an income of say 30K per year values the cost of supporting the children at just over $3,300 per year or a mezly $64 per week per child.

So what dollar value do you state to be 'very little'? Or, do you agree that each child should be supported with a set dollar per week amount that is calculated depending on the age of that child.

Obviously I feel that $64 per week would be an unreasonable amount to try to support a secondary grade student, however I would consider it to be ample for a child under 5years of age. On the other hand $200 per week is over the top irrigardless of their age, unless of casue we want to support a devided society of the haves and have nots.

You see the system is flawed in many ways. It encourages non-custodial parents to cheat the system or risk being screwed, it also does nothing for the self asteem of seperated children from a less that effluent upbringing.

I say there should be a set amount per week per child (dependant on their age) and all non-custodial parents should be forced to pay. If they don't pay the state should prop it up and those people who have short paid will one day work and they should be made to pay the state back by way of extra taxes etc.

After all the ones that are missing out now are the children. The innocent ones that are caught up in the system.
rehctub