Robert.
Robert we dont mind to debate you.

We do not appreciate your claiming we are cheating on OLO by the way in which we post with our tag.

Just because you did not like something either Taryn myself said that is no reason to start a thread claiming we were cheats and misusing our membership on OLO.

Taryn may post as she wishes.

Yes it would be fair to say Taryn got very upset over a post going back a long time ago. People went too far and she actually was hurt by it.
I do mean hurt in the physical sense.

No we know it wasnt YOU who posted the comment Robert. However several posters at the time said "they saw no reason why the personal insulting remark should not be left up."

She fought hard to get it removed as it was also an insult to her then one week old baby.
Her partner saw it and there was terrible problems.
She six days weeks in hospital.

Also her partner would never work. He was lazy. She worked two jobs to keep the four children. Shes a good Mum and lovely lady. She has principle unlike him. Shes moved away for a better life for herself and her children and her new husband has three children and a sick Mother that both he and her care for.

There is no way she should be forced to give her children to her x simple because shes re married. It was HER who supported them anyway not him. Of coure I am sure the x would love the kids so her could claim supporting parents money from centerlink.
She has told him he can see the children any time he likes but not her. I think thats fair.
Difference is both her and her husband work to provide for the seven children in all.
Good People and many second marraiges are bogged down with nasty x wifes or x husbands I agree Mr Gerritt. I am told her husbands x is just one of such types as well.

PALEIF, staying a bit off track but the residency issues are heavily tied in with the child support issues.

I was saddened to hear about the assault on Taryn when the details were posted a few weeks ago. I'll leave off further comment at this point but Taryn's comments indicate that there was more than just the post involved. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=989#18021 and http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=989#18082

I'm not opposed to children being moved away from a parent where there is a genuine ongoing risk of abuse, sometimes kids need that protection. I don't think it is fair to those not making the choice to move away for lifestyle reasons. If someone chooses to do so the consequences should as far as practical stay with the person making the choice to relocate.

You've claimed elsewhere that my views on this are about controlling people, that is what our family law system is supposed to do. It's not all that different to what you do, seeking to limit the actions of others. PALEIF seeks to limit the actions of live exporters and intensive farmers because of the view that their actions harm others (the animals being exported or intensively farmed).

I think that the interests of children are best served by their parents making responsible choices. Those choices are about doing your best to make life choices which fit your obligations to your children. Starting a relationship with someone where development of the relationship will require someone to move away from children or the childrens other parent is not putting the children first.

In relation to the current topic if for some reason the only viable solution to child care arrangements following one parents decision to move away is for the children to go with them I think that the other parent should be absolved of financial responsibility for those children, perhaps even compensated for their loss. I don't see any reason why they should pay for kids whose lives they can't play a meaningfull part in because of someone elses decisions.

R0bert

PALEIF
your bashing of Robert is in my opinion unwarrented and somewhat unsubstantiated. This x as you reffer to appears to have more than one child to this lady. Did he change all of a sudden or is this the same x she chose (SHE CHOSE) to have several children to.

I think that without the facts it is very difficult to make an assessment of someone

Mr Gerrit
I have looked at you blog and can I just say that as a small business owner since the late 80's I have never witnessed a more dramatic adverse effect on small businesses than when the unfair dismissle laws were introduced. Within a short period we saw the emergance of many one man businesses as the owners were petrefied to employ anyone which resulted in many businesses deploying a 'closed shop' approach to employment.

God help us if we see these laws reintroduced because the effects will be huge. The mining industry is a classic. Being the driving force behind the economy at the moment, any forced changes to their employment arrangement may well place this great nation into recession again. Lets face it there is enough pain with interest rates at 8%, imagine if we see 18% again.

As for super contributions I feel that all entitlements should be paid on a weekly basis and if the recipient (employee) can't budget tough luck. The sheer cost of compliance for small business is rediculous. And now to make matters worse the employee gets to choose their own super fund so we may have several funds which we have to place contributions into. Each time we make a transfer or write a cheque we get charged by the bank. All of this because the government have failed to provide for the future retirement plans of the workers and the workers are not capable of managing their own business affairs. And of cause as with all finacial burdons placed on business it is the consumer or the business owner who has to pay in the end. I wonder just how nay hurdels will be placed in my way before I can spend the money that I have saved for my retirement when I get there. All because we have this mantality that the under achiever has to be supported by the achievers of this world.
rehctub

Rehctub there was this man who at age 38 decided to cash in his superannuation. Now, the employer didn’t pay in superannuation contribution so this man could spend in on buying a racing car! This is the absurdity we have.
My view is that unfair dismissal laws, as like any other law, can be abused but we also must keep in mind that ample of employers were abusing the system.
In one case, an employer sought my assistance where a former worker had claimed to have been unfairly dismissed. His lawyers were, so to say, already counting the money. Just that I had a talk with his mother and she explained to me that he didn’t like living in a large city and wanted to move back to the country, as he did. Once I then filed the document for the employer making known what the former worker’s mother had stated, and he had no intention to return to his job the former worker quick smart withdrew his claim. And I did the service free of charge to the employer!
As such, I am well aware there is abuse, but again there are ample of workers, such as those on special visa’s who are being ripped of big time. Ironically the man who appeared in the WorkPlace adds is now charged with underpaying one employee $12,000.00 and another $14,000.00.
Perhaps Kevin Rudds proposed system may be the balance between the two evils? At least it will be an improvement.
With superannuation, it is really nonsense, as the employer simply works out total cost to employ a person, whatever the bits and pieces are. Hence, not the employer but the worker should be held accountable to place the monies in an account and then not some private company which can go broke, but a secure account, such as government bonds. I do not approve of people cashing in superannuation before retirement, squandering the lot and then having to rely upon welfare! It defeat the purpose of having superannuation in the first place.

PALEIF, in family life often incidents occur where one cannot prove one way or another certain events. As such a judge may consider the general conduct of the person as a witness in Court and from this may take the view that the person is generally honest and other statements not corroborated with evidence nevertheless can be accepted as being the truth or the judge may regard that the witness appears to be unreliable as a witness and as such any uncorroborated claims may be held not acceptable without supporting evidence.
No harm to place matters in affidavit provided it is done in an appropriate manner.
If there was violence then if the victim went to a doctor then the doctor may have records of attendances, even so no specific injuries were noted, the doctor may still have recorded something to his perception if violence did or didn’t occur.
As for property settlement, it doesn’t matter who worked in a paid job or not as the other partner in his/her way contribute to the earning, being it by housekeeping, looking after the children, etc.
In my view, if the Court made a property settlement and one of the parties causes ongoing problems which has a financial effect upon the other party then a Section 79A (as it was then) application could be made for the judge to amend the orders and to provide compensation for the additional cost, etc.
I was assisting a man in his custody case, and made clear I would not charge any cost but upon the understanding that if he lied I would step out and assist the opponent party if I held this was appropriate. The man offered me monies to conceal from the court he had received a superannuation pay-out, his wife never knew about existed. I stepped out of his case and he spend $13,000.00 on lawyers and still lost the custody-case, and his wife filed a Section 79A application, once she (later) was advised by me about the superannuation.
My credibility was never for sale!
Hence my trademark; MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®