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.