I hear and read so many opinions on how single mothers are hard done by, by their child support payments. I don't think these mothers are thinking about how hard done by the fathers are. I am in a situation where my partner has to pay child support for 2 children that we have not seen in over 2 years. As far as I'm concerned if he isn't allowed to see his children and have no decision in their upbringing then he should have to pay nothing. It was the mother that made the decision to make sure that the children never seen their father again by making false allegations. We pay child support because we have to and she is constantly asking for a review as she is never getting enough money. How much is enough? It is the big question. She recieved the house and all the contents in it and the car and he got his clothes. But in return she gets money every month. Mind you this money we have already paid tax on and she gets it tax free, yet the formula that is used to work out the amount of child support paid is based on your Gross income. There are decent parents out there that do the right thing and others that don't. What is really fair?

I find it interesting the only women who seem to have trouble with the bias in family law are the ones who partner up with divorced men with kids and see the inequities of the system first hand.

I read an interesting comment the other day. A woman can put her child up for adoption, and pay no child support. If a woman decides she hasn't the financial or emotional capabilities to look after a child, she can simply opt out.

Men are responsible for their children regardless, even if their partner has sole custody and never even lets them see the child, and they have no right even to demand proof they are the father in the first place.

There's something seriously wrong in all this.

"I read an interesting comment the other day. A woman can put her child up for adoption, and pay no child support. If a woman decides she hasn't the financial or emotional capabilities to look after a child, she can simply opt out. " Posted by Usual Suspect, Monday, 12 May 2008 9:08:12 AM

Oh Usual Suspect- what unfortunate words you chose to make your point. Giving a child up for adoption is not "opting out". It is a very painful and soul searing decision to make and not one that is ever taken lightly.

That said, child support is a highly emotive topic. However, changes are happening now. As of July 1, 2008, the combined incomes of both parents are more accurately calculated into the equation. In addition, the formula has changed and is considered after tax. At least progress is being made.

I agree that keeping a child away from the non-custodial parent is absolutely unacceptable. The insanity that can occur post-relationship breakups defys logic. Children have only one mom and one dad- and the children certainly did not ask for the situation they are in. Unfortunately though, there is no legislating for selfish and unreasonable behaviour among bitter filled parents.

yes indeed all the old boo hoos are being regenerated as we head for 1 July 2008 and the Professor Parkinson "new formula", even the good old DNA issues.

But all are just just boo hoo as the next thing to come up is the next round of funding for these secret wimmens business groups, now joined by Howard/Ruddock Cash for Comment "mens groups"

But will Kevin 07 just continue to hand out these $80,000 pa funding packages?

Oh yeah, any bloke can apply to a court for parentage testesting - I do them all the time, so one myth exploded, 2,645 to go

of course no lawyer will tell you your rights as they ARE the Family Law Industry that makes $20 billion pa out of blokes

and by an amazing coincidence I just posted my lastest "Boo Hoo Buster" at

http://ktabforum1.com/for0701/viewtopic.php?t=67

So the big question is why is the taxpayer ALSO funding Buttercup when the [deadbeat] dad is already OVERpaying?

Tammy Jo,

'It is a very painful and soul searing decision to make and not one that is ever taken lightly.'

Indeed. But why do we assume the man takes it lightly? And regardless of what the man wants, he still has to pay to bring up his child. Women 'own' the children. Men's financial responsibility for a child is determinied by the mothers wants. Unless a man can override the woman's option for adoption, and then make the women make CSA payments to him?

Divorce Doctor,

', any bloke can apply to a court for parentage testesting '
Really? What are his chances of success? Does he not need the mothers consent?

"Divorce Doctor,

', any bloke can apply to a court for parentage testesting '
Really? What are his chances of success? Does he not need the mothers consent?"

why would he need the mother's consent?

what must be realised here is that [save for some recent Howard aberations] Parliament does not make gender biased legislation, or as seen in Brandy the High Court can knock it on the head

the spin comes from the spinners, and maybe you tell me where you got YOUR spin on this bit of mis-information

I am fairly sure I dealt with this DNA issue in my book, so please check it out at http://www.ablokesguide.com

The one group the scheme is supposed to help are sometimes the worst hurt by it.

Kids grow up with parents who should be moving on with their lives who are instead locked in conflict. One parent feeling that the other owes them and should be doing more, the other parent feeling ripped off by a system that ignores their needs.

We need to get seperated parents out of each others finances as quickly as possible, not keep them tied together finacially for years.

R0bert

Court of Australia. Do you have any evidence this matter in dispute and allegedly settled by the High Court, was actually conducted by the High Court or was it a private hearing of the dispute conducted by the individuals, who are appointed as justices of the High Court, but who can also hear and determine disputes in private LEGAL PROCEEDINGS under sec 34 of the Cth Acts Interpretation Act 1901with the parties consent.

You would be fully aware of the hearing of Luton -v- Lessels, File No C40/1995, allegedly conducted by the High-Court-of-Australia but what you are not aware of is that this was one just hearing of the issues in dispute conducted by the individuals, who are appointed as justice, but who heard this matter in private legal proceedings, pursuant to sec 34 of the Acts Interpretation Act, and then the Commonwealth published this result as a binding High Court authority creating the common law of Australia in relation to the payment and collection of Child Support.

If you were to inspect the file at the Registry in Canberra you wont find the SEAL OF THE
HIGHCOURTOFAUSTRALIA displayed on any of the documents issued by the COURT, not even the original copy of the originating documents or the order held on the file issued on the 11 April 2002, six months and one day after the private hearing was conducted. The only stamp you will see on most of the documents filed and issued from the Office of the High Court is the OFFICE SEAL.

You may consider yourself the Divorce Doctor but before you can effectively assist your clients, you should first discover and identify the disease or virus that has infected the legal system you deal with and operate in. This is how they enforce Government POLICY and ignore the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. Kirby had a hand in this along with most of the pretend judges but they only had the parties implied CONSENT.

Missing part of my previous post.

Divorce Doctor, you have referred to the matter of Brandy allegdly conducted in the High Court of Australia

young dan, I have NFI of what babble you utter

34 Power to determine includes authority to administer oath

Any court, Judge, justice of the peace, officer, commissioner,
arbitrator, or other person authorized by law, or by consent of
parties, to hear and determine any matter, shall have authority to
receive evidence and examine witnesses and to administer an oath
to all witnesses legally called before them respectively.

all that says is a judge etc has authority to receive evidence etc for witnesses

besides, Luton was a put up job mate. The lawyers did a pass around the hat at certain boo hoo mens clubs and then did the old trick of if you dont ASK the court the right question they dont have to answer

they asked is COAT a judicial process - well of course it is not, it is "officer" in your beloved s 34, as was Mr Baston QC [from memory] in Brandy

but the guts of the issue was, was there an appeal path to a Chapter III judge so the Act in Brandy got zapped

as Callinan J pointed out in Luton there was a de novo path at s 116 of CSAAct against a COAT [Part 6A] - well until Nazi Howard zapped the lot [but we then zapped him, so Kevin 07 will soon need to "mend" the law back to what is lawful, "soon to come up at a court near to you"]

I cover all of that in the book mate

Divorce Doctor- are you really trying to constructively contribute to this thread or are you shamelessly trying to flog your book?

If marriage is about “sharing”, divorce should be about “sharing the pain”.

No divorced party can expect to be insulated from the negative effects of a divorce.

Whilst in some case a singular, dominant fault may be found in one party, for most divorces there is a degree of mutual shortcoming.

“He might have been unfaithful but how available or amorous was she in the first place?”

No single fault, mutual discommunication or often no communication.

Some people use every means to punish the other party, regardless of their joint failure to maintain their marriage.

I approved of the recent changes which levelled the playing field between the ex-partners.

From an external perspective, anyone looking in to a failed relationship should consider the needs of the children and the importance of both parents in their ongoing development. To achieve the best outcome for that ongoing development and to maintain a sense of fairness, the only solution is to treat each parent equally.

If that means some women now consider themselves hard done by, because they do not get to keep 70% of the asset base, too bad. They are entitled to half the joint assets. Likewise their ex-partner is entitled to half the assets. Anything different is inequitable. Similarly, the responsibility to fund a separate household falls individually to each of the separated parties and custodial parenting should be shared.

It should not be the foregone responsibility of the male to be impoverished by his female ex-partner.

US your adoption scenario is an interesting twist and agree, it seems “paternity”, as you suggest, is not necessarily a genetic responsibility but may be endowed as the product of “maternal deceit”. Like you said, something seriously wrong.

Fortunately my maintenance paying days are over. I was seriously disadvantaged in a no-blame divorce but my daughters now know what I did to manage the situation, what the ex did to exploit it.

Now they are old enough to regard us accordingly and judge their mother for her deceit.

Does anyone know the answer to this?

If a woman decides to put her child up for adoption, can the father override the woman's wishes and take on custody, and then make the women make CSA payments to him until the children are 18?

they are not "her kids" for starters

the answer is the father would simply make an application to a court for "residence" [or under Howard reforms, the major time spender]

Buttercup has essentially shot herself in foot already so if dad not an axe murderer he should get kid

child support follows the event

however her blood sucking lawyers will try some 3,745 tricks, which is why I devote a few hundred pages to Child Matters in my book to explain these tricks

http://www.ablokesguide.com

you can see index for free to see if your topic is covered, and if not please just ask and I will do another Free Extract

I don't wish to keep going over old ground but, child care payments MUST be calculated as a dollar value per child depending on the childs age.

The current system, and proboly the new system values the needs of a six year old as equal to that of a 16 year old and this is where the problem lies.

If CC payments were a set value then the non-custodial parent would know how much they are to pay and can get on with continuing thier lives.

The current system encourages dishonesty and has to be scraped in my view.

TammyJo said:

"Divorce Doctor- are you really trying to constructively contribute to this thread or are you shamelessly trying to flog your book?"

well my dear little TammyJo, as Australia's leading expert in Child Support [opinion of the Full Court, not me] it would be recalcitrant of me not to point both Buttercups and Victims to the truth, given that I have put the truth into my book

but flog? not at all my little flossie

these are FREE extracts and hey, I just did a new one especially for you

but news is not good for GREEDY Buttercups

seems they GET 275% of what they NEED

Now how can that be Fair?

http://ktabforum1.com/for0701/viewtopic.php?t=68

My family is the ultimate blended family. One of mine, one of his, one of ours. So I've seen it from all sides! I've learned lots and anybody who is about to go on this painful journey of separation where children are involved can come to me for advice. Perfectly free. Gender is of no importance. Hide your gender if you want.

Firstly, child maintenance is payable by either mother or father. It depends on the income and where the child resides or who has custody.

Secondly, these debates are NEVER about the needs, or indeed, the reasonable expectations the child may have from its parents, but ALWAYS about an adult who stuffed up a relationship and is bitter about perceived benefits the hated other adult is supposedly enjoying or withholding. It is almost always about themselves.

The child is the handy tool to justify self-righteousness. The children are a useful avenue to needle, score points, to harass and at the worst, wage psychological warfare on the other whose guts you now hate. What's possible to inflict, legally, is quite breath-taking if harm to your own child is of little or no consequence.

Ugly behaviour is not gender specific. So, got that of my chest.

It would be so simple to fix this nonsense.

yvonne, very well said.

R0bert

Must see exposure of the family court.You will come to the determination, this is not about MOTHERS OR FATHERS, But many other issues.

Follow the link and scroll down to Richardson Interviews 1-4 With On Second Thought TV out of California.

http://onsecondthought.tv/videos.htm

Yvonne

Beautifully expressed post.

Usually these threads descend into much axe-grinding and whining by those who feel they have been wronged - very little is discussed about the best outcomes for children.

Perhaps a better title for this discussion would've been:

Child Support and Parents: What is fair to children?

That the current system disenfranchises many caring fathers, will only change when people actively pursue change to policy through discussion with their government members - local & federal. Meanwhile the bias that currently sees women are the primary care-givers will continue.

What is fair to children is that they be with the parent(s) who is in the best position to care for and love them.

If there was a way to legislate that children not be used as pawns by bitter parents, perhaps we would see more equitable outcomes.

Any suggestions?

My dear little Divorce Doctor- Is that a yes or a no to my question? Just for some light relief have you heard that last winter it was so cold that I saw a lawyer with his hands in his own pockets?

This child support issue is certainly contentious. When my parents split up a zillion years ago I was used as a pawn in the middle (by my mother). When I grew up and married- then divorced I vowed not to put my own children in the middle. They are happy and well adjusted children- able to float seamlessly between our respective homes and lives.

My ex-husband & I do not agree on much but we do agree on being the best co-parents as possible to our children. This is a direct result of my own unpleasant experiences as a youngster and my determination to take the road the best benefits my own children.

My ex-husband does contribute child support and I am sure that when he pays it every month it must hurt like hell. However, even he acknowledges that my contribution to raising the children does not have a set monetary amount- because it is priceless! Between the two of us, we make sure our children are not disadvantaged in any way as a result of the marriage breakdown. We divorced each other- not our children.

Robert,

'We need to get separated parents out of each others finances as quickly as possible, not keep them tied together financially for years.
'

That's the smartest comment on this topic I've ever heard.

Yvonne,

'What is fair to children is that they be with the parent(s) who is in the best position to care for and love them.'

This is the real problem. Gender roles being as they have been, and often still are, the mother will always win by this definition, as she has more likely been in the position to spend more time with the children.

I see the split of custody as best for the children like this. The maximum resources go to the child. So more often, that equates to the 'prime carer' parent at least 5 days, along with the house and maximum income. That's the best solution for the child. So often that equates to Mum, the house and Dad's income.

Any man who wants to take on a traditional role as provider in this day and age is setting himself up for a huge risk of losing his children and his house and a big chunk of future earnings.

So in these debates, the woman is handed the moral high ground as the children's best interest is very advantageous for her.

You can say men should all demand equal share in the child nurturing and equal hours in the workplace, but I really don't think a lot of women are ready for this any more than men.

"Perhaps a better title for this discussion would've been:

Child Support and Parents: What is fair to children?"

OK we all know such "Motherhood" statements, but you are missing the point. We HAVE had that democratic process, starting with the HUGE Joint Select Committee in 1994, involving a Howard/Parkinson farce in 2005, legislated 2006, starts in 6 weeks.

The time has long passed for submissions [and I have made many, as well as summarising the whole deal in my book]

But then the lawyers and Buttercups suddenly stir the pot to generate agro [to generate fees] just as new deal about to start

what is worse is the Examples they gave were TOTALLY WRONG, and the fact that this was intentional was proven by these freaks removing their forum topic as soon as whistle was blown

and yes, the Professor even CALLED his Report "best interests of kiddies" but then lied and delved to make new formula essentially the same as old formula, but snuck in a "chase deadbeats to their graves" for good measure

so what I do in the book is cut through all the pathos and motherhood stuff and just supply the facts

but hey, are you taxpayers out there quite happy to provide your own top up to child support that is already double what is needed? or is it the same old:

"It is most fortunate for Governments [and lawyers] that the people don't think"

Adolf Hitler

"My dear little Divorce Doctor- Is that a yes or a no to my question? "

it is a non event, as my book was so "good", ie so spot on with Howard's nasty devices [NOT in best interest of kiddies, but of lawyers] that he paid his Cash for Comment freaks to PIRATE the book, per:

"I see the moderators have removed yet another post about the very badly written and incomprehensible 'Blokes Guide' advertised by the idiot that has the Australian record of being banned by the most forums

I have a copy - its a complete waste of money - he should be paying people to read it instead of trying to rip off people at a very vulnerable stage in their lives - he is worse than a lawyer

Anyone want a free pdf copy please email me at

ozziebarbarian@yahoo.com.au

Warning, its a boring read, reading the local telephone directory would be more interesting and useful"

so you can get it from Conan FREE

only problem is Howard told Conan he was "protected" against legal action but now Howard is thrown overboard

so ..... shortly coming to a court near to you

Fractelle

‘That the current system disenfranchises many caring fathers, will only change when people actively pursue change to policy through discussion with their government members - local & federal. Meanwhile the bias that currently sees women are the primary care-givers will continue.’

A lot of people on this discussion thread are out of touch with the new child custody laws that came into effect last year.

It’s 50-50 straight down the line now. You have to be an axe murderer or its equivalent now to get less than 50% child custody (residency).

My niece was one of the first to experience the new laws and she is delighted with the outcome. Not only does the 50-50 arrangement give her more independence and more earning power, but her children are seeing much more of their father than during the actual marriage.

I'm at a loss to understand why divorced single mothers have been so castigated over the old child custody laws. They certainly did not do women any favours in limiting their work prospects after separation and forcing them into continued financial dependence on a (usually) hostile ex-husband.

While perhaps the new laws may not suit everyone, these new child residency laws were one of the few decent things to come out of the Howard years. However, I’m not kidding myself that his motive was to give women more independence.

"A lot of people on this discussion thread are out of touch with the new child custody laws that came into effect last year.

It’s 50-50 straight down the line now. You have to be an axe murderer or its equivalent now to get less than 50% child custody (residency)."

seems YOU are most out of touch

I think you are talking re Legislation and not Law [which is case law]

and what you got from misery guts Ruddock was joint parenting RESPONSIBILITY - which you HAD all along and called Gaurdianship [see Vlug & Poulos where a SRL turned the FCA on its head, the full court even having to correct their Chief Justice]

and FCA ALWAYS gave 50/50 where appropriate [in 40% of cases], BUT only 5% of cases go to court and for the 95% done by "consent" by blood sucking lawyers, NOT ONE got 50/50

and put "residency" into your Adobe search of FLAct - see, no returns mate - that's because residency ALSO was thrown overboard by misery guts under Howard instructions

Boy do you ever need my book

Almost fell of my chair today when I heard that one of the changes to child support is to be based on the needs of a child depening on the childs age.

About time!

Just on another point raised earlier, why do mothers have the right to put their child out for addoption, then, have no reposibillity towards the financial support for that child when fathers often have their children taken from them while having to support them all the way?

After all, many separations are as a result of financial pressures, so where is the balance here?

"I'm at a loss to understand why divorced single mothers have been so castigated over the old child custody laws. They certainly did not do women any favours in limiting their work prospects after separation and forcing them into continued financial dependence on a (usually) hostile ex-husband. "

I'll adress this to those who might be taken in by this spin, I'm fairly certain SJF knows the reality.

It's primarily the womens groups that fought against shared care proposals. Have a browse through the submissions to the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs "Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangements in the Event of Family Separation" and see if you spot a pattern in who was opposing shared care and who wanted it.

I can't currently locate the detail but think the sources were from work by the Hilda Survey as referenced below http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/hilda/hdps.html#dapper showed clearly that women were much more likely to be satisfied with low levels of contact between fathers and children than were men.

Page 9 of a submission by Women’s Legal Service, Brisbane to "Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangements in the Event of Family Separation" (who were opposed to a presumption of shared care) http://www.wlsq.org.au/documents/submissions/wlschildcustodyaftersepnsub0803%20.pdf shows a view about the levels of satisfaction with care arrangements.

Social conditioning, a family law system that has created a winner takes all approach to child residency and gender bias in the support services has led to a situation where many fathers have been pressured into consenting to child residency arrangments which they are deeply unhappy with.

R0bert

Robert ( Divorce dr) You are so off the mark.

It’s 50-50 straight down the line now. You have to be an axe murderer or its equivalent now to get less than 50% child custody (residency)."

You need to do more research, start again by watching all 4 interviews that were released by On second Thought TV in California.

http://onsecondthought.tv/videos.htm

MAKE SURE TO VIEW ALL 4 Interviews of Douglas Richardson Vs C.P.S Criminals.You Highly under-estimate the Discretion and abuse of the courts.

The inequity of often having the father wear the financial burden and the mother the burden of time in child rearing underscores the importance why it so vitally important that mothers maintain their expertise and skills in the workforce.

Neither men nor women can afford this outdated idea that mummy stays home while daddy goes out to work. Mummy and daddy have about a 33% chance that they don't want to play mummy's and daddy's with each other anymore. And then it is all about the money.

It is amusing reading threads on OLO when the discussion is about supporting mothers to stay in the workforce when they have children. Then they're self centred b*tches who want it all.

As SJF illustrated, when both parents are financially independent the money issue is largely resolved. Then it becomes about the time actually spend child rearing. Previously seen as not equitable to monetary input. Becomes an issue though when one parent suddenly finds time needs to be put aside for that and only paying money isn't enough!

TammyJo's ex seems to appreciate that the job of child rearing is comparable to financial support as input towards raising children.

I'm not up to date with present custody arrangements. It used to be that a custody arrangement was valid only until it was challenged by the other parent, which could be as soon as 6 weeks later. A wonderful avenue for financial bullying through the legal system. I knew it well.

My opinion was that the family court could do with a bomb underneath it. Children are not like the house, furniture or the pets to be haggled over.

An issue that needs to be addressed. This notion that children are the property of anybody, or that any person has a right to them. We used to view women like that. As property of her father or husband.

R0bert

‘I'll adress this to those who might be taken in by this spin, I'm fairly certain SJF knows the reality./ It's primarily the womens groups that fought against shared care proposals.’

You’re using some spin of your own here. I was making an observation about social attitudes, not women’s rights. The laws and social attitudes that dictate that women be primary carers pre-date second-wave feminism by at least 4 decades. Women as much as men have had to change their attitudes over recent decades, as gender roles have changed.

Many women push for a greater share of child custody because of traditional social expectations about mothering, not because they want to spite their husbands or because they believe they are the better parent. Just as many men hold back on demanding equal share because of the same traditional expectations.

Also, if you are going to provide links, would you please be more specific about what you want the reader to pay attention to? The first link you gave provided a page of about twenty article titles that I do not have time to sift through to see which is the most relevant. Also, the Women’s Legal Service report did not back up your argument – as the sections that dealt with equal time share were concerned with practicalities, like how it would affect the children, and with extreme cases, such as ongoing history of violence. I did not see any reference to women being the more worthy gender when it comes to parenting.

Divorce Doctor

‘and FCA ALWAYS gave 50/50 where appropriate [in 40% of cases], BUT only 5% of cases go to court and for the 95% done by "consent" by blood sucking lawyers, NOT ONE got 50/50’

Laws are about precedent, and precedent takes time for a pattern to develop.

Under the old laws, the arrangements were so open-ended that the lawyers and traditional parenting attitudes often dictated the final outcome - both in and out of court.

Social conditioning, a family law system that has created a winner takes all approach to child residency and gender bias in the support services has led to a situation where many fathers have been pressured into consenting to child residency arrangments which they are deeply unhappy with.

well Robert THAT is the whole basis of the book, ie Rule #1 of Marketing - MARKETING sows the seeds, SALES reaps the Harvest

so that is why my initial chapter is FREE, ie in the hope some blokes will get out of their Stockholm Syndrome Bunker and kick ar**, just like the ladies do

http://csacalc.com/book/contch1.pdf

yvonne,

'Becomes an issue though when one parent suddenly finds time needs to be put aside for that and only paying money isn't enough!
'
Not sure what you mean here? Are you saying to the parent who dared to spend their time earning money for the family, that they should now get their just deserts?

'It is amusing reading threads on OLO when the discussion is about supporting mothers to stay in the workforce when they have children. Then they're self centred b*tches who want it all. '

No, they're self centred to think that they should be able to have children without it affecting their lifestyle at all (and that everybody else should pay for that), and so are their partners.

For all the feminists that think women are being kept out of the workplace through some type of discrimination or lack of incentive, I know a lot of women where NO incentive would be enough to take them away from their natural urge to be primary carer. If their partners want in they have no chance, especially if they earn more. Women get 'first dibs' at being primary carer, and I bet most women who have a husband earning $200k+ don't bother going to work after having children.

Most women I know would much rather not work at all and stay home with their kids, it's just that this post feminist world normally requires two incomes to afford your own home. So they reluctantly pay some stranger to bring up their kids.

'This notion that children are the property of anybody, or that any person has a right to them.'

At the start of life, the mother owns the child. They're from her body, and let's face it men are secondary from the word go. Even when you think about abortion, men have no say. Not saying there's anything wrong with any of this, just that the starting position of life for a child is that they are owned by the mother. I'm sure many women see it this way from then on in.

Excellent points from SJF and Yvonne -as always. R0bert, I understand that you have been treated appallingly by both your ex and the CSA. However, this doesn't mean ALL women are to blame for your experience.

When I divorced my partner, there were no children involved, so it was very straight forward in legal terms. We both worked full-time and the property settlement was a 50-50 split. Just as it should be.

My concern is that the welfare of children is still neglected by warring parents and we still have a predominate belief of women as the primary care-givers. Hence all the conflict.

However, we are changing (very slowly), many men are quite rightly claiming that they are competent parents too and taking on the responsibilities of parenting.

If only there was a way to legislate against bad behaviour, then maybe this blame-game that is indulged in every time this topic is raised would end.

dougmrich,

I had thought this was an Australian forum, and Judge Judy type Fam Law CSA from Mother-America have absolutely ZIP to do with Oz [except for boo hoo]. But as I look at your site I see all the same [Baskerville etc] cra* as at Howards Cash for Comment web site, so all the bits fit, espec as you have been posting this stuff at Nuance since 1997

and videos at a huge 1,300 kbps that stop/start/buffer/slutter

if you want to know how to put up a video, all about rendering [unto Caesar of course], and more, is revealed at my site http://www.themediadoc.com goto MovieMaker Stuff
get a life Lindsay

Divorce Dr,

First of all the link does not go to my site, it goes to On Second Though TV in California, whom came to Michigan to interview me.

Second, you could have never herd about my case or my posting until 2006 when the case was profiled by the media, NOT YOUR ANNOUNCED 1997.

Third,If these issues are limited to each individual country, why is it that Lea Anna Cooper from your country published my story in her book, the Liam Magill story.(Days of tempest)

respectfully,As a pronounced Divorce Dr, you should really learn to listen twice as much as you talk.

last, and least, I have not posted in this forum, or any in months. I came back to this forum because I received and email asking me to come back, that they had noticed I have not posted.

So Dorothy, you get a life.

fractelle said:

"My concern is that the welfare of children is still neglected by warring parents and we still have a predominate belief of women as the primary care-givers. Hence all the conflict."

yes, but this [the OP article] is about CSA and not Fam Law ruminations. AND it is about a matter [maintainance] which 19 years ago morphed from a PRIVATE matter to one called Child Support where a humungous govt dept employing several thousand blood sucking lawyers totally ABUSES your privacy

but even more it is about, on the Eve [no pun intended] of the new formula, Buttercups doing an Oliver and asking for MORE.

the question is as to the fairness of the situation

to that end I provided expert evidence to show that EXACT situation [eg B/cup can get up to THREE TIMES her needs, and all that is BEFORE her LOP which is her "little Ozzie Pension"]

It would be good IMHO if the posts answered those concerns and not drift into Gender War and MotherHood statements

we got enough of that from Howard/Parkinson

all it does is to Help those asking for an Oliver

and we saw that at the Cash for Comment site once I did the same thing and blew the whistle, they immediately Zapped the whole thread and reverted to Rice & Asplund cra*

I am not saying the OP was doing the same as CfC site, so why not just stick to the question, or start another thread on boo hoo

fractelle please don't misunderstand my position. I'm not blaming all women or only women for the mess. I responded to SJF's post which tried to portray single mums as having prime care thrust on them. Whilst that is true in many individual cases it's also true that the groups which claim to represent them have been at the forefront of opposition to shared care.

I think that a number of issues are involved.
- A view of women as victims.
- The winner gets it all aspects of child residency
- The ongoing income from C$A where a former partner has sufficent income
- Sometimes revenge
- Sexist attitudes over gender differences in parenting
- Negative views of men and fathers by some especially those dealing with violence against women

We have a lot of work to do to undo this mess. We need to ensure that mothers have legitimate career opportunities. We need to ensure that fathers have appropriate access to parenting.

We need to find viable ways to break the ties between child residency and property settlements whilst still meeting legitimate child care needs.

We need to break the finacial ties between parents where they are not in agreement about the level of financial support needed by the children - perhaps people who can't work it out for themselves could pay into or be paid out of a pool rather than have their support or financial responsibilities determined by the other parents choices.

Whilst money is so closely tied to child residency conflist will continue, people of both genders will make decisions that harm their children because the harm to children is not as obvious at the time as the other issues.

R0bert

Robert, I agree with you that to separate parents from the money issue would be a great start to bringing the focus back to where it should be. On the needs and reasonable expectations of a child.

Not only for children from separated parents by the way. All children.

Money that is compulsorily paid for children, both by the taxpayers and by parents should be kept separate.

To my mind it is fairer if the schools directly get 'uniform' money, 'resources' money, the GP and dentist are directly paid etc. I even think that if school canteens provided school lunches at least it would be assured that all children get one decent meal a day. Both 'poor' and 'rich' kids by the way.

I am convinced that when children are separated from a source of income and it is ONLY about the job of child rearing the majority of 'custody' battles will disappear as snow in the sun.

Usual Suspect, my personal belief is that a woman only 'owns' her child when it is in her womb. When that umbilical cord is cut a child is an autonomous human being.

Too many parents keep on talking about 'their rights'. Parental rights are no more important or valid than children's rights. Parents have responsibilities. These do not diminish on separation from a partner.

These responsibilities do not diminish either when you meet somebody new and you contemplate having children with this person.

CSA new system is so unfair. We have to pay $120 more per month under the so called fair system, now totalling $600 per month, because the mother has a private business and claims zero income. She owns her home, claims sole parent pension, meanwhile we have alarge mortgage a new baby and I have to go to work so we can survive and pay the ex wife child support.
It absolutely infuriates me. My partner has always paid child support and has no problem doing so, but his amount is just so extreme. COnsidering the 5 nights fortnight she is in our care we provide food, clothes entertainment, hockey fees take her to games even when she is at her mothers because her mother wont take her, we pay private health insurance. This child is expensive and I have a 13 year old myself and know full well that they do not cost this much money, it is absolutely riduculous. We have had no luck with CSA they have e very negative attitude towards men who want to decrease payments. Its about time they investiagted some of the mothers.
Edna

edna,

I sympathise. Maybe if this system starts to affect more women there might be hope for change.

"CSA new system is so unfair. We have to pay $120 more per month under the so called fair system, now totalling $600 per month, because the mother has a private business and claims zero income. She owns her home, claims sole parent pension, "

Edna,

having processed over 1,000 comparison cases over 3 years, there is no way your payments would increase, as the average is about 30% DECREASE

By all means goto http://www.csacalc.com and I will do a report for you [free at present]

It is most impt in legal matters to get ALL facts straight, eg had not BEEN a sole/lone/lonely parent pension for over 10 years, and recently under Costello "mainstreaming, welfare to work" even the old term of Parenting Payment has been replaced by the Dole.

a lot of these subjects are also free at http://www.ablokesguide.com, but to read the whole Centrelink and Child Support chapters you would need to buy the book

Edna, I agree with DivorceDr. It is also up to your partner to take responsibility and have a reassessment if the amount seems excessive. Just complaining won't fix it. There are many factors taken into account when child payments are calculated. Your partner's income is an important aspect.

Unfortunately, a large mortgage on your part is not really your partner's child's affair, neither is the fact that the mother owns her own home. Working to pay off a mortgage is the reality for very many couples, with or without other children.

Taking into consideration ongoing and possibly increasing financial commitments for children from a previous relationship is something that has to be taken into account when a new relationship is formed. Feeling resentful about this is very limiting. Having a blended family myself I cannot understand why some people go ahead with a relationship if this is going to be an issue. Some people simply come as a package deal, which will possibly impact on your financial options.

The fact that your partner's child is covered by private health insurance doesn't actually cost him anymore than only covering you, your new baby and himself. As to the hockey, maybe the mother doesn't value her daughter doing hockey, but her dad, who happens to be your partner, does. That you support him in this is wonderful, but to feel anger towards the mother is a waste of emotional energy.

I've found that the trickiest thing to deal with when your partner's other child/eren come into it, are your own feelings. Some ruthless self reflection can assist in accepting the reality that your other half has equally strong feelings and commitments to other children as he/she does to your joint children.

Well I have to eat humble pie here as Edna was correct in her case [ie shared care and a new kid]

As I detail in the book Howard/Parkinson were up to every trick in the book [no pun intended] and the vote catching sell [that went horribly wrong] for "Joint Parenting" indeed had many whiskers and this is just one of them

Thanks Edna for posting yr case - there are some 100 billion possible scenarios so it is only when people actually USE the comparison service that more and more Howard abuses come out of the woodwork

so back to my dinner of humble pie on the BBQ