"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.