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.