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Neither men nor women can afford this outdated idea that mummy stays home while daddy goes out to work.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