I am in the midst of a custody dispute over my 18 month old daughter. Her father is an alcoholic and has compromised her safety on a number of occasions. We have been separated for 5 months. He has access to her 3 days of 6 hours (no overnight contact at this point in time). The hostility is enormous between us. He leaves her to sleep in a room at his place of business unsupervised whilst he goes off and works. I need more information and am finding the system is really letting us down. I want her to have contact with him but I believe it should be relative to his behaviour. There are orders from the court that he is not to drink prior to or during access with his daughter and he is not to take her into public bars. There is no clear definition on how to enforce the orders. I have had to take her away from him a few occasions because of his drinking. More legal letters, him stating he had a cold? I told him he could have his daughter if he attended the local police station - if he was ok he could take her. He refused. I dont believe shared custody is appropriate in all circumstances. His addiction causes him to have impaired judgement and make poor decisions that could ultimately have serious outcomes.

Dear System,
I certainly feel for your situation, but can do little about it specifically. Be strong.. couragous and steadfast.

I'm wondering though, did you not know about the habits of this man from early on ? Did you join with him in the creation of a child thinking

a) I can change him.
b) He isn't that bad.
c) you fill in the blank.

I feel you are quite justified in your concerns over his behavior and access. The courts apparently take a different 'legal' view though?

Perhaps the more important lesson here is our overall social values which permit us to enter into relationships which are ultimately destructive for all concerned.

It grieves me that we have become very open in our relationships where we don't seem to look for the most important value in a person we create a life with. For me that is a loving relationship with God. Looking back, I know how much strength that has mean't for me in lifes difficult times, and how much joy it has given me during the happier times.

It seems we have just gone along our merry ways, and just acted without much big picture reference, and suddenly when we feel or experience negative consequences for our lack of enduring values, only then do we realize how much we have missed.

For those who don't realize, they will just go on, and on, and on in a cycle of trying to pick ourselves up by our shoelaces.

On your assertion that 50/50 shared custody is not always good? I totally agree. What is left for you know, is to either go with the system, or.. lobby somehow to get some support and try to change it such that behavior IS a factor.

This reminds me very much of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act which says that 'Motive is not a consideration' in matters of religious vilification. How silly. I am doing all I can to change that, including public activism. I can share some insights of ways to publicize your cause if you like.

systemfailure, I'm in complete agreement that 50/50 shared custody is not appropriate in all circumstances. Just as parenting is not appropriate in all circumstances. We have provision within the law for children to be removed from situations considered dangerous to the child.

There are also clearly plenty of situations where one parent does not want the care of a child and children are better off with someone who wants their care.

What most who are advocating for 50/50 are after is what was called a rebuttable presumption or shared care. Start with an assumption of 50/50 shared care and if there are valid reasons why that is not suitable then do something else.

What we should not have is the situation where bitterness about the other parent or where financial considerations become the main factors in determining residency. It's all to easy to confuse your own angst against an ex with your childrens welfare.

The business of custody disputes can be crippling for all involved (including the children) and while there is not a recognised presumption of care such disputes do not require a sound basis for the dispute.

The division of assets based on residency arrangements at the time of the property settlement makes for a big inducement for some not to share the care of children. This cuts both ways parents who don't really want the kids may pretend to do so for a period to protect assets as well. It would be great if we could find a way of isolating asset division from residency but I've not yet seen any proposals that look like they would achieve good outcomes on that front.

Please don't assume that those advocating for 50/50 care are saying it should always occur. Rather we are saying that it should be the starting presumption and variation should only be forced with good reason (such as alcohol abuse when kids are in that parents care) or where one parent does not want the care.

R0bert

dear OP, I am not sure why you describe a situation where, in my expert view and 20 years experience in Fam Law, that father should have NO access/contact/spending time/visitations [whatever] with the child, but then jump onto the good old 50/50 with ReButterballs con job of the failed Howard govt.

These are totally different issues, not only under FLAct but from 1 July under CSAAct as well.

Did you actually go before a judge or a JR or was this all done via "House & Garden" as the lawyers call it in the RollOver Room??

all these terms and matters are explained in simple terms in my book and if you ask nicely I can give you the address

What a difficult situation to be in systemfailure, I hope everything works out for you.

RObert makes some good points about the presumption of 50/50 shared parenting as the designated starting point.

In one case I know of personally, 50/50 shared parenting did not work because of the disruption to the children's lives ie. moving week by week from one house to the other, but while the mother now has the children for most of the week, her ex-husband (who also travels a bit for work) gets to see the kids whenever he wants and if he feels like having them over for dinner during the week or going to see a movie that is fine. They often stay with him for extended periods during the holidays.

The premise for this decision was for the sake of the children and to best fit in with her husband's work commitments - both were happy with the outcome. For others 50/50 shared parenting may work well. One thing we know is there is no one size fits all solution each family needs an 'individually tailored" option.

I know someone who gave up a high position to 50 50 share. Hes a nice bloke. Hes nearly always been travelling as his job takes him overseas a great deal.

when his wife told him she wanted a divorce John gave notice.

Now as much as a lot of people try to make out this 50 50 parent thing isnt about settlement and money of course it is.

Hes no fool and I dont say he doesnt care for his kids but hes aware that if she keeps four reasonable young children she going to slaughter him at property settlement time.

Johns worked hard for his three houses and this and that etc etc.

So his lawyer advised him to leave his job and settle down as a part time dad.

I think hes actually really looking forward to it and to be honest hes given the kids more special time together since it all started.

I am very sure in the long run many times it can only be a good thing but my point is often 50 parenting really is about money property settlement and even centerlink payments.

If the serperation is particuly nasty it can do more harm than good as well with arguments after arguments every two days.

It also I am told by the lawyer (as I attended along with him as a friend)a way in which people who dont want to let go hang on a drag things out.

Many of those same people never bothered too much to raise the kids leaving it to Mummy.

Now if mums had enough this can be used to stop her going and control her.
A very very dangerous thing is give 50 50 unless each case is looked at long and hard.

Good if it works but hell for kids if it doesnt.

Systemfailure, you head this post 50/50 shared parenting

I presumed it was to be about that but

You then go on to describe quite extraordinary circumstances which the majority of marriage breakdowns do not suffer.

I separated in 1993, in them days women had the whip hand and my ex used it with relish. She was forced dragging and screaming to make a settlement, threatened to take my daughters overseas and took 70% of our assets because she was female.

I got 30% assets and limited access to my daughters.

When we separated I rented a unit close to the matrimonial home and eventually bought another house about 300 meters away closer to the girls’ school.

Not because of what any law said, my daughters ended up spending half their time at my house, used to pop in in the morning on the way to school, same at night and thus we shared more than the allotted time which the agreement said.

What I can only assume is your criticsm of shared parenting are not typical. We each have a different tale to tell.

50/50 shared parenting is the right approach.

Children need a loving relationship with both parents wherever possible. It is fundamental to their general development and transition to becoming a functioning adult.

That some parents do not behave appropriately toward their children, as in the case of your ex, should not be used as a measure of how the rest of us behave.

PALE “A very very dangerous thing is give 50 50 unless each case is looked at long and hard.”

It is a more dangerous thing to presume one parent has superior rights to parenting simply because of gender.

I do not believe “paternalism” has any redeeming merit, I certainly do not believe “maternalism” has any either.

I agree with most of what PALEIF has written in that last post but make the point that 80/20 also often is influenced by property settlement and "free" money. Neither gender is immune to looking to their own future needs.

I doubt that many of those who insist that a father should not change his priorities following seperation to allow him to deal with changed circumstances would accept a situation where a mother was not allowed to take on more paid work or to start studying (both of which are likely to impact on care arrangements). Seperation and divorce does change patterns of care, in most cases children and fathers see each other every day where they share a house even if for short periods. Seeing each other every second weekend or less is a remarkably different care pattern.

The arrangements and priorities people make as a couple are often not the ones which suit or work for them when they are apart.

I'd like to find a way to take the winner takes it all aspect out of this so that money was not an issue for residency. The current system can and often does award the bulk of the property to the person holding residency at the time of the property settlement but has no practical means to address changes in residency which occur after the event. I'd be worried if it did because that might stop people changing to more workable arrangements. My impression is that over time once the settlement and the bitterness of the divorce process is out of the way kids often start getting to spend more time with the other parent.

I don't have answers which I'm entirely happy with for the property issue. No one answer seems to address the issues well.

R0bert

Robert said
I'd like to find a way to take the winner takes it all aspect out of this so that money was not an issue for residency.
pale- Ar Yes thats would be the answer for sure - but alas how.
Col.
No All I am saying is John is a very successful high flyer biz corp director that has provided well.
We are overall fond of him however- to be fair to the kids hes not much for organisaing children
I could tell you many amusing story of his failed attempts to do what mum has done all the kids lives - be there drop this one and that club and back fror another etc.
The shoe problem was very difficult for him- two houses. He solved that by buying two lots of everything.

While we have all fond it highly amusing one cant help think how stressful it must be for the kids on a daily basis.

We know both parents and when mum brings them horse riding and swiming at our property he kids are far happier because there not so much drama.

With Dad they are hard to control and little buggers because there is always so much confusion.

Mind you I know a Dad who does everything while mums out drinking with her friends.
like Robert said its hard to get it right and even harder for a judge to judge it on a half day sitting.
In ALL honesty I think johns four are better with Mum most of the time and see dad every second weekend which is more than they are used to anyway.

Hes determined shes not getting half of his three houses because hes cross she left.
Hes an awfully nice person just human. Hes angry.
So here he is determined to do the 50 parent thing.
Highly amuzing for those who know him but in all honesty a disaster for those little kids.
He even came here one with three kids in the car instead of four.

I've been thinking about the situation described earlier by PALEIF and it may be correct that that in this instance the mother is the more competent parent.

What sticks out though is that there is nothing about this situation which would suggest to me that if this was an intact family that the authorities would consider removing the children from the parents care. A family where both parents were not well organised with the kids, where both struggled to discipline them. We know those families exist and few would support removing children from those families because they might be better cared for by the family down the street who are better organised and better with discipline.

Why is that when a couple seperates we think things that are not significant enough for action in intact families are significant enough to warrant removal from single dads?

I get PALEIF's point that it appears that the property issue may be a big motivator and if that is the case it is sad but the authorities don't remove kids from parents because we don't like their motives.

We remove kids from parents when the childrens safety is shown to be at serious and ongoing risk, not because someone else can do the job better or is more pure of heart.

R0bert

Robert
Yes it is sad because Johns a top guy. He loves his kids but in all honesty he so angry at loosing control of his life he doesnt see the damage hes doing.
The kids have grown up with Dad being away a lot and Mums done a good job mostly with their manners to be honest.

Now the kids have worked out of course they are the center of attention big time.

Dads buying them everything they want before they have saved their share which mums always insisted on depite their wealth.

They are changing and have started to fight with friends that they grew up with and that sort of thing.

There is no easy answer and as you say each family is very different but I think kids should also not be sheltered from the facts of life. Mum and Dad broke up for example.

I talk to mum or dad on the phone everyday and I stay weekends with dad while i go to school from my same house like I always did.

Solves the shoe problem if nothing else.

Also if a woman has not take out a domestic ava order throughout the marriage then suddenly gets one it should be very very very carefully checked by the court.

Its the oldest trick in the book. Support me or you wont see the kids etc .
Support the kids and pay the rates etc but not support the wife it she can work without neglecting the kids - no

People are entiled to move on and second wives and their children often live in poverty while dads first Mrs bleeds him.

It happens that all I am saying.

John can afford it but many cant and really suffer.

I also know hes never going to get the hang of the 50 50 parenting thing as much as he loves his kids.

Its just not him. As amusing as his friends find John cooking dinner for the kids its really damaging them to be honest.

They used to be balanced and happy,

PALE: "As amusing as his friends find John cooking dinner for the kids its really damaging them to be honest.

They used to be balanced and happy"

I suspect they'll be balanced and happy again, too. The fact is that divorces are hard on kids as well as parents and there is a period of adjustment required. I was also denigrated as a parent by the mother, who claimed all sorts of dire consequences for my "disorganisation" as she put it, yet the Court eventually saw it my way. I've always maintained that her major motivation for the 6 years of hell she put me and the kids through was the funding she was able to claim to go back to Uni (for her third degree, no less) as a "single mother". Apparently the other two weren't sufficient for her to be able to find work... Once her degree was finished, magically so was her opposition to shared parenting. I doubt to this day that she would have acquiesced to shared care if I had not taken the step of refusing to pay her child support as long as she chose to withhold the children from me, so I agree wholeheartedly with your comments about the financial issues involved.

I do agree that not all situations are the same and that sometimes shared parenting is a failure for all sorts of reasons, but the short-term "disorganised" situation you describe should not be taken as indicative of the long-term interests or wishes of the children.

PALE” No All I am saying is John is a very successful high flyer biz corp director that has provided well.”

Using particular, anecdotal examples , which are not universally observable, does not make for good law.

Law should be written based on what is best for all. That means both parents and any children.

Children as best served by having an ongoing relationship with both parents.

Parents are best served if they are both treated as equals and not one as subordinate to the other, as used to be the case when women were considered incapable of handling finance and their estates automatically became the property of their husbands.

Regarding “to be fair to the kids hes not much for organising children”

I will take credit for being better organized but it is largely irrelevant.

Children need more than simple organizing. If it were a matter of organizing children, Lenin’s experiments in collective parenting would have not been such an unmitigated disaster.

Children need the unconditional love which I have observed, with very few exceptions, only comes from a natural parent.

My daughters dealt with the failure of their parents marriage pretty well, largely because my ex and I both maintained a sense of unconditional love for them.

They are both adult young ladies now but if I ask then the question “how many times do I love you?”

they answer

“Once, from the moment of my birth, ongoing and unconditionally, forever.”

That is the bedrock of faith in parental love which everyone needs to develop into complete adults, free of emotional impairment.

A child will overcome disorganised parents far more easily and readily than they will overcome being denied or deprived of Love.

as much as I repeat we all like john How Stupid do you think kids are?
Dont you think they know Dads real angry because hes had to dump his high profile job to stop mum getting the loins share of the settlement.

They know. They are now learning their worth is property settlement.

As I said hes doing far more harm than good to these four little children that used to be happy and balanced and normal. Now they are playing one against the other( parent) and turning into not so nice little spolied brats.

John Will never be organised and this has been going on a long time now not just a few weeks.

I honestly think kids should stick to what they were doing as much as possible before the break up.
Their routine should not change - or only change weekends but their schol should be from the house they always left from and came home to.
Weekends- sure go stay with mum if they are living with dad - or dad if they are living with mum
imop thats the very best you can do for kids of broken marraiges.
talk to the other parents on the phone at least twice through the week telling them they wont carry messages between parents or get involved in mum and dads arguments.
Some kids on the other hand are lucky to have a mum that further educates themselves for the good of their family.
btw centerlink grants are available for men as well as women to avance ones knowledge.
Anyway its not my problem but I just thought I would share with you all the other side of 50 50 share.
It really very often IS about money (sad )

PALE: "btw centerlink grants are available for men as well as women to avance ones knowledge."

I bow before your undoubtedly excellent personal knowledge of Centrelink benefits. However, as an employed or self-employed person, I have no way of affording to attend uni full-time, yet as a "supporting parent", my ex was entitled to leave the job she had, take up "the pension" and receive additional funding for full-time education. I was expected to pay more CS because of that decision (you'll note it was HER decision,not mine), thus rendering me even less capable of attending uni myself. She was even given funding for her Family Court efforts to prevent me from having equally-shared custody whilst I was forced to represent myself as I had insufficient funds to pay for lawyers. Fortunately, despite the best efforts of "the Women's Legal Aid Service", I still made my case. Perhaps I should be grateful they weren't very competent.

Whilst I don't claim that all women do this to their former spouse, it is all too easy for those who wish to do so.

I deal extensively with ALL Child Matters in my book, please read it and weep at the truth

here is index to chapter 5

http://www.ablokesguide.com

5. Child Matters ................................................................. 100
5.1. Do you want that with fries?..................................... 100
5.2. But my lawyer said ... ............................................. 101
5.3. Finger up Bum Driver Reviver................................... 103
5.4. 2007 update .......................................................... 104
5.5. The legislation........................................................ 122
5.6. Reconciliation Reviver ............................................. 125
5.7. The Case of Larry ................................................... 130
5.8. More New Bits........................................................ 133
5.9. Pedophiles [incl MBP] and Family Law ........................ 134
5.10. Where is Normal Order? .......................................... 137
5.11. He has forgotten KISS............................................. 144
5.12. Contempt and Contravention.................................... 148
5.13. You call THAT an order, HERE is an order ................... 152
5.14. Further proof ......................................................... 159
5.15. The Great Howard vs Parkinson Vomit Bikeoff ............. 160
5.16. Signing off............................................................. 165

PALEIF “They know. They are now learning their worth is property settlement.”

If ever there was a two edged sword, it is that one.

“I honestly think kids should stick to what they were doing as much as possible before the break up.
Their routine should not change - or only change weekends but their school should be from the house they always left from and came home to.”

Whilst that is idealistic and we do not live in an idealistic world I would observe the following

1 my daughters did not need to chance school, thus idealistic your expectation is quite possible.

2 A child’s routine will evolve naturally as the progress upward in age. Evolve essentially means change

At different ages

Changes to school syllabus
Changes to shoe size
Changes in clothing
Changes to routine as they take up or drop different extra-curricula pursuits.

I do believe you are making an emotional argument, rather than a rational one and my observation is, undue attention to emotions do not make for the best laws or best outcomes.

I just thought as I said I would comment on the down side of dragging kids between two homes on school days.
I have seen three of my friends do it and its much worse than seeing Mummy or daddy weekends on the little kids.
The arguments and fights and struggles contiune on a daily basis.
Both the past two posters have provided also further evidence it is about money.
Even our friends Johns change waw with property settlement in mind despite the fact of corse he loves his kids. He adores them.
Also Anti if your got help with uni its must have been because she was on some type of single parent payment. Which would again indicate you had to be hauled into court to be made reasonsible for these kids.
pretty sad.
Hey Col People get pretty emoitional about kids they tell me- Usually their own
Whatever happend to love thy neighbour as you love your own
The trouble kids have today more than anything is totally self serving parents. They dont learn anything but fighting and whos going to buy the best birthday pressi Mummy Or Daddy.

Its not the kids fault the way they are raised but give me the old days anytime

PALE: "nti if your got help with uni its must have been because she was on some type of single parent payment. Which would again indicate you had to be hauled into court to be made reasonsible for these kids."

I realise you're not very well educated, but do try reading for comprehension: it'd make you look so much less like an idio...as you were, waste of time.

She was on the single parent pension (as I said) and I was dragged through the courts because she wanted to get more custody than the arrangements that we agreed to. Is that simple enough for you? In support of her case she got legal aid because she was on the pension and she was smart enough to claim that I yelled at her, which made her able to get a DVO case going. I have never been in Court for Child Support. Is that in simple enough terms for you? Not too many big words? All that when she had been working before deciding to leave me. What about her "capacity to earn"? I attribute her recent decision to tell the CSA to get stuffed to her own "capacity to earn" becoming such that she'll soon have to pay me.

IOW, I was dragged to court because of the mother's greed and I only have equally-shared custody of my children because I made my case and her Qld Women's Legal Aid Service-funded lawyers weren't very good.

As it happens, I agree with your thesis that it's all about money, but in my experience, the money was the motivation for her to try to keep the kids away from their father. My motivation is solely the desire to be a parent to my children.

As it happens, both my children are well-adjusted, outgoing people who do well in school, are responsible and loving and look forward to the change of scenery each week. How dare you claim to know what's best for my children? Prat.

I wonder how many children PALE&IF has?

The thread's moved on a lot from the last time I'd noticed it.

PALEIF I'm largely in agreement with the contents of your post following my last one. I do think you underestimate the impact money has on the 80/20 system. Whenever we allow child residency to impact on finances we risk have people using child residency to alter the financial outcomes for themselves. I was told at one point by my ex that she "would never agree to residency arragements which resulted in her getting less money", another good friend pointed out that one of her sons needed more time with his dad but she would not be able to afford the rent if that happened. Both have since relented and both boys are doing far better than they were.

Shared care is not ideal, thats accepted. No solution will always provide the best outcomes in ever situation. I think that when shared care is compared to the other stuff we do following relationship breakdown it provides the best starting place.

As for keeping things as much the same as possible - great in an ideal world but often not practical. If we really believed that was vital we would not allow parents whose kids were having problems move house or school but we don't do so. It only seems to crop up as a big issue when it happens to allow mum to keep most of the family assets and put her in a postion to get lots of free money. Mothers groups use that idea to stop shared care but not to stop mothers relocating at their own choice.

Cont'd

R0bert

Part 2

It's always useful to look at the arguments used and see how well they fit in other situations.

- If a parents in an intact family are disorganised or angry should they loose their kids without proof of genuine and substantial risk to the kids?
- Is stability for kids so important that we would stop parents making significant life changes to maintain that stability in other situations?
- Is maintaining a lifestyle so important to kids that we would force other parents not to downscale or take a sea change to maintain the lifestyle kids are used to?
- Is the issue being used to oppose a change just as much as risk in what we have now? - Eg why is it assumed that dads trying to keep some assets is a show stopper but mums grabbing most of the assets
is not?

The list could go on but it's my view that most if not all of the arguments used to oppose shared care are not ones society chooses to apply in other situations or ones which give a better answer when we look at the status quo. That suggests that they are arguments of convenience rather than arguments of conviction.

R0bert

lets face it folks, shared parenting was just another Howard election gimick for the boo hoos at the mens groups, all after "peak body" status.

We always have HAD [rebuttable] JP, that's why we have courts and a FLAct

Most of the posts talk to a particular case where JP might or might not work, so we have judges to hear evidence and decide IF parents cant

There was never any suggestion a citizen would be TOLD by a statute they MUST be JP

in fact shared parenting? that's what married folk do

PALEIF “Hey Col People get pretty emoitional about kids they tell me- Usually their own”

That is WHY 50/50 shared parenting is the best option for children, so they are involved with the two people who are “emotionally” involved in their upbringing and development, rather than one parent who is hell bent on denying their children the emotional support the other parent can give them, preferring to see them grow into adults with fractured personalities.

That is “reasoned argument” to support then view that a child’s emotional development is enhanced by mixing with both parents. (versus “emotional” argument)


“it is about money.”

I would certainly agree, in part. That was part of my ex-wifes motive. For me, I always believe parents are equal providers for their children and should be treated as 50 / 50 contributors and entitled to 50/50 upon separation.

I went to my elder daughters house last night, exchange the Easter egg thing. She asked me to stay for dinner and we swapped photos, whilst her boyfriend went and picked up takeaway. Great dad and daughter stuff.

I have a relationship with both my girls which fills me with immense pride and joy because

Despite the machinations of a manipulative ex-wife, I made sure I kept the relationship with my daughters active.

Despite my ex-wife fraudulently claiming for things she had not bought for the girls and which I was due to pay half of, I paid them anyway.

My daughters now know of their mothers deceit and have expressed contempt for her conduct.

Like you said, PALEIF, it is about money and like I said previously, it is a two edged sword.

When the females of a divorce stop trying to use the family court to punish their ex-husbands, stop trying to secure their own fincancial benefit and the family court respects each parent as equal and behave objectively, without a gender bias, then and only then will we see the abuse of the legal system abate and children placed first and not used asa a tool to extract a financial share greater than half.

When the females of a divorce stop trying to use the family court to punish their ex-husbands, stop trying to secure their own fincancial benefit and the family court respects each parent ...

correct, but it's the lawyers and not the court

as court says 95% of cases are House & Garden ie "never get out of solicitors office"

Robert

I have read a lot of your posts over the years. Mainly pout of interest to the attention and knowledge you have tried to share.

The only real reason I came into this thread was I was thinking of our friend John.

Perhaps we should all say something to him because saving three houses isnt worth making the kids lives miserable.

Its just like before the slit anyway with the daily arguments.

Anyway I am a bit out of my comfort zone and happily admitt to that.
I had a dream once when I was little that children turn out as Morgans So I decided not for me;)( Actually it was a nightmere.

Anti Women.
Of course I do not know your circumstances and my post was in general

They say kids grow up like their parents.

I honestly hope not for your childrens sake.

You rude and quite unnessarily so. I would suggest my IQ might be considerably more so than yours.

I wasnt interested in your life Anti. However now you have dragged it into the forum why on earth would your x wife and mother of your children have to seek asingle mothers pension.

Thats awful.. In other countries like Germany that would never happen. Perhaps the Australian Government need to follow their leadership.
How horrible for your two girls to know Mummy had to seek welfare to raise them after Dad was not around.

Sad Very Sad. Your very lucky they even speak to you IMOP

Clearly they must take after their Mum if they are nice girls because your example of how to treat your fellow man or woman leaves a great deal to be desired.

PALE: "why on earth would your x wife and mother of your children have to seek asingle mothers pension."

Because she chose to. She was working before she made the deision to leave me. You would have heard of work, no doubt? You know, it's what everyone else does during the day.

"How horrible for your two girls to know Mummy had to seek welfare to raise them after Dad was not around."

She didn't have to, she chose to and I agree that it is horrible for my children to know their mother was too lazy to work to support them. What do you suggest I should have done about that? Other than "just pay up".

"Your very lucky they even speak to you IMOP"

Which shows what your opinion is worth, doesn't it? Don't let your ignorance of the facts slow you down. Ignoramus

Anti everything, especially x wives.

Sunshine I have worked all my life. Very long hours farming, security companies investigations restaurants… because I chose too.
Wow, she was working before she left. What a wonderful woman.

Raising two girls plus holding down a full time job.

The children certainly have seen a good example in life of how to achieve your goals.


I honestly did not know that men could expect a wife to raise young children plus work full time.

No wonder why she left and of course you should have paid and been very happy too.! IMOP

In Germany e.g. Men still pay for x wives and children regardless- Even if there is no children.

X wives hold a greater respect in other countries more so it would seem than here. If they don’t pay the end up in goal. Or go into working houses to work off the back maintained.

Anyway as you chose to again attack me for no reason I just wanted to say once again how really unpleasant you are.

I don’t care about your family Anti awful.
I know that might sound selfish but at least I am honest.
Go away your a bore.

I only really came in here to ask Roberts advise if he doesn’t mind.

Robert Do you think friends should say something when they see the kids upset by their Mum or Dads master plan if its upsetting the kids. Or keep quite?

The little one was crying when we took him out horse riding he which s normally loves.’
I asked him what was wrong and he said= Because Mum and Dad fight more now than even before and he goes to school upset everyday and it makes him sick in the tummy.

He also said Dads a lousey cook:) kids

so we are now at the holy grail point of 50/50 the fact that total strangers are talking to hypothetical issues

yes the whole of Howard/Ruddock plan was to boost the $20 Billion FLIndustry, even a Billion from taxpayer to fund new Family Relationship Centres, simply by causing agro with a "no change" amendment to FLAct

Trouble is I was so correct, 2 weeks before election Howard "arranged" to Pirate my EBook ablokesguide.com, so he is about to get an applic under Copyrigh Act - stay tuned

PALEIF “How horrible for your two girls to know Mummy had to seek welfare to raise them after Dad was not around.”

Antiseptic is correct and you are wrong

I would also agree with him on the matter of you talking from the hip, whilst my personal experiences are ancedotal, they are at least first party and my suggestions framed to be fair, what I beleive is equitable to all and from experience what were in the best interests of my children.

My ex suggested she would go on the single parent pension at one stage. That despite being healthy and having a job which she did not like and maintenance payments from me.

Me paying maintenance makes no difference to her right to pull a pension

I told her I thought such an idea was stupid since she would be building herself a poverty trap and make her employment potential even less than it may otherwise have been if she were to at least maintain the impression of having a work ethic.

As a foot note to all this, my younger daughter phoned earlier today and said her mother was having a BBQ, she has a bunch of UK relatives in Aus at the moment. My daughter said I was welcome and invited. So tomorrow I will be catching up with the outlaws.

Strange, maybe not typical but after 15 years of separation the rage has abated, in part.

My daughters don’t have to worry about flying kitchen utensils when me and their mother meet.

I think back. Anyone anticipating separation just remember one thing

You presumably loved the other parent of your children once. Trying to destroy them now makes a mockery of how you once felt.

PALE:"What a wonderful woman.

Raising two girls plus holding down a full time job."

Yep and I was doing the same, still am. I must be a saint! Oh, of course, I can't be, I'm a man.

"Anyway as you chose to again attack me for no reason "

As you chose to try to tell me that I'm a bad parent for wanting to have my kids and as you've since gone on to throw insult after insult in my direction (albeit pretty feeble, in line with your capacity) I think I have every reason. Dolt.

You'd do better sticking to what you know...just what IS it you know again?

Col Rouge,
That was a lovely post.
Anti Dont you know when someone is pulling your leg.
I just said that.
Ar, Its all a bit of fun you see.
However I dont like women working with very young children. Maybe I am old fashioned but child care places are not where little ones should be full time.IMOP
Sounds like you had a good wife.
No wonder your so agro all the time.

You might as well stop kicking yourself however and learn not lear from your mistakes.
Perhaps she found you mean spirted and ungrateful

Who knows I can only judge you by how you treat others on the forum
Cheero and do try to be happy.

Col is correct. By rubbishing your kids mum is really putting yourself down and nobody else.

Now before you write back remember I said I am not the slightest bit interested in you your wife your kids.

"Me paying maintenance makes no difference to her right to pull a pension"

you must go back a long way as maintenance died 20 years ago and "Little Ozzie Pension" some 10 years ago

Wendy, sorry about the delay in responding. I've been thinking about your question and how to answer it. Given our history I'm a bit nervous about this process but will attemp to answer in good faith.

Firstly involving yourself in a friends family law situation is a high risk proposition. Emotions can already be stretched to breaking point. Friendships can be lost, harsh words can be said which are hard to undo.

Are there suggestions which you can make to help John do better at meeting his kids needs if he stays on the path he is on? Are there things you can think of which would help him manage the kids better. Do you have any meal suggestions that might work for him?

Talking to him about the stuff thats not working for the kids rather than about the rights and wrongs of property settlement might get a more receptive ear.

It sounds like John does love his kids but is struggling with some of the management issues. He should be smart enough to work out for himself if he can do this longterm if he can get time and space to think about it, sometimes when we are stuck in the middle of something it's hard to step back and put it all in perspective.

John's attempts to keep property is not your issue, concern for the harm inflicted on the children by both their parents choices may be. Focuss your efforts on helping the kids rather than how you think the legals should go.

If you think you need to say something to him make sure within yourself that it's something you would say if John was Joanne.

Sometimes we have to bite the bullet with friends and say things they may not want to hear but it's not something someone else can choose for you.

Good luck with this.

R0bert

cancel email alerts

can only think you are all part of Howards Cash for Comment Team

http://familylawwebguide.com.au/

but hey, just like WorkChoices, Howard LOST

you need to GET OVER IT

and that site is about to lose funding

Robert

Thanks for that advise its Wendy Here. Umm its hard because as you have picked hes SO angry regarding her leaving its all about not only money but not wanting anything to change.
What he doesnt get yet is that its only his life that has changed and not so much the l kids lives.
John has nearly always been away travelling. They are used to that.

In the begining we enjoyed his sometimes hilarious attempts to be the house wife or partent to four kids.

The kids are miserable as hell and he cant even see it. His cooking is beyond help so we all statred tomake different dishes and drop them around to help claiming we had cooked too much etc.

He said thanks but he enjoyed cooking and spending quality time with the kids.

I think its best I leave it to the men to say somethying maybe over a beeer at a BBQ . His wife is aware that the kids are not happy at his place four night a week or three but shes trying not to look like the trouble maker so I guess its up to her and the courts.

Its a hard one and to be honest at times I get so mad with him because cant he see the kids are really miserable.

They love their Dad but his place is so full of dont touch this and dont do that while saying hes giving them quality time.

Just quickly Robert I would like to say sorry for past comments.
The problem wasnt you but Graham Young told us very strickly how we must post using our tag.
I was rather annoyed under those circumstances we could not defend ourselves.
Anyway lets not go into it that anymore. Of course! the pale tag doesnt belong in these sorts of comments but its not my call.

Hope you had a good Easter and thanks for your comments I will chew them over with friends.

Wendy, thanks. I'll be very pleased to leave that stuff behind and if I've wronged you please accept my apologies as well.

I don't envy your you with the situation you describe. Please do keep in mind that things change, if John is struggling now he may get better (or may realise that he is not doing so well).

Those who won't move on do make things a lot worse. All the anger in the world can't force things to be the way they were but I don't know how you help him to see that. Sometimes it just takes time.

Good luck.

R0bert

Robert
Scout always told me if we had a problem to talk to you.

She said you were sort of a keeper of olo and you took pride in your involment. I am so sad Scouts gone. I really liked her.

I know you did too. I think you felt she left over us. In a way its true. She stuck up for the truth.

Anyway I am going to tell you 'some'-buggered if I want people thinking of us as cheats.

It was simply thing that happend. A email was read out by Antje that OLO needed donations.

We felt we used it to benefit the Animals so we should join. It was eleven hundred. A great deal for a struggling organisation like ours.

We paid it. Were told if we wanted to post as a organisation to cancel Wendy and register as pale.

So I put the helper teck guy on to speak to Graham because I am hopless with computers.

Next thing there were two tags-PaleRSPCAQLD = one Wendy.

So the first time we tried to use our new membbership we were banned.

All hell broke looose with the members because they lost loss the funds of which they borrowed $600.

Finally after 'much 'drama we were told we could post as "only if we never discussed what happend."

Thats why we wont ask for any changes. They members are scared of getting banned again.

Re John . He`s getting worse instead of better and jumping for nothing at the children.

They are suffering and hate staying at his place.

I had words with him yesterday afternoon as he hit the boy across the ear. The kids go to my horses. Have for years.

I put them in my car from the horse paddock and drove them home to mum.

He called me and started crying. I felt awful.

I think he`s very sad and angry all at the same time. Hes changed a lot.


They sneak phone calls to me.

They wont ring Mum because they are scared of causing more arguments.

'

Wendy, given what Graham has said about us discussing our posting history I won't take up the first part of your post. :( I did very much appreciate Scout's contributions even when I did not agree with her. One of the greats in my time on OLO.

As for hitting kids around the head - that is very scary. That goes beyond any concept of discipline and is abuse. Regardless of the whole smacking debate hitting when angry and hitting on the head are not discipline.

I've posted links on other threads to articles about recently released research which suggests that smacking kids is a significant factor in later sexual violence, given that I respect the work of the main researcher on other fronts I've had to take that seriously and change my views on smacking. The case may not be 100% proven but is good enough that it's not worth the risk.

Unfortunately given the time that family law disputes can drag on for (and the long term involvement of C$A) unless John decides to change his attitudes it may be some time before he gets past the angry stage.

R0bert

Robert
Yes I agree. I have asked him not to come with the children anymore and to restrict his own visits.
I work very long hours and I dont need to be dragged into a court by his wife who is trying to get the kids through the week and have them vist weekends when they want to go- but not if they dont want to.
I dont know if thats a good thing either because then its like the kids learn to rule the parents.
However its been a good lesson for me regarding friends.

Not a good idea to comment on how they treat their children or how their children are in general

We have been friends a very long time and this has been our first words ever.

I guess its as he said just none of my business and in time he will learn that they can still be happy but honestly i think John needs to go back travelling and working like he used to.
Thats normal for his kids to be honest.
Mean time I am taking time out as I told John and his wife and I refuse to go to court for either one.
Thanks Robert for your advise= Your right it isnt easy.
Glad its not me.

i am new user 2 this site & also new 2 the above topic.my situation is different 2 the posts i have read.i have a 4 year old child-whom has lived with me their whole life,the biological father wasnt around thru pregnancy or after until about a yr ago.he has since begun paying more Child support & has begun spending time with my child on a fortnightly basis.this has happened approx 12 times{some of which the child hasnt wanted 2 go-however i have urged them 2}i organised a mediation session 2 confirm & set the times that we had originally agreed on-he wanted more time,i increased the time fm 6 hrs a fortnight to 17 hours in that session,he also wanted overnight care right away & i said no 2 this as i know that my child would not want this or be comfortable with this or even ready 4 this at this age & also at this time of their relationship.There has been no major bond formed yet{contrary 2 what the father states}my child has always slept with me at some point thru the night & has always been only able 2 b settled by me.i know that he will grow out of this but this is something that takes time but 2 b totally honest i am in no hurry 2 urge my young child aaway when he is obviously wanting/needing the love, support & presence of myself at this time when he wakes.the father is now takin me 2court 4 50/50 custody 2 begin after court in may.this includes overnight stays right away.50/50 is just not an option in this situation-the child has been cared for by myself as a sole parent their whole life.this is ANOTHER CASE where the "rules/precedents etc" have 2 b altered and seen as not suitable.
I AM LOOKING 4 ANYONE ELSE IN THIS SITUATION-SIMILAR OR HEARD OF SIMILAR.
NB:i am in no way opposed 2 a relationship developing between my child & father-this needs 2 b graudal.a fortnight overnight stay will be fine in time determined by an assessor or myself.