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