To call that blog whiny is missing the point ;)

All I can say to that blog is read the comment that comes after :)

Ok ok. I have a sense of humour - snappy posts earlier to be attributed to acute sleep deprivation thanks to my two little angels!

Actually, what scary is that there ARE women out there that are accurately described by that blog. I dont think they constitute a majority, but they are there for sure. One's my sister-in-law (and she still wonders why all the boyfriends run for the hills at the mention of marriage).

While its anecdotal only, most women I see that might fit the mould as described by that blog seem to come from traditional patriachal families. They retain an expectation of being treated like a princess (because thats what daddy did), without taking on any of the changing responsibilities that come with a change in the role of women in the family

Hi all
Without having read all the posts here, there seems to be a bit of stereotyping going on here. I wonder if there is a generational thing happening? I remember a woman friend, upon seeing my partner out some washing on the line said "he's putting the washing out for you" ("for you" being the operative words). I pointed out that it was work and casual clothes belonging to both of us.

My partner was caught in a very nasty divorce many years ago. At the time of separation, he was left with the two children, then infants. One day, while he was at work, and they were in the care of a babysitter, his ex came and took them - out of the country. She demanded for maintenance more than he was actually earning (despite the fact that she had by then moved in with a millionaire in an overseas country), yet he was not able to see them again until they were teenagers.

I'd suggest that there are faults - and merits - to each case and we should look at this issue on that basis.

Cheers
Nicky

Thank you Robert and CountryGal.

Usual Suspect, believe me I'm not bitter. I was relieved when I finally got out of that marriage. Just reading some of the comments flung at women in general made some of the unpleasantness of the time bubble up.

Robert for instance, would have a reverse story. An unstable self absorbed female quite prepared to use children's well being as a weapon.

Dad's are not done in by lazy grasping ex wives. They are not paying for the mothers, but for their children. BOTH parents contribute to the upbringing of their children. One parent may earn more, so contributes more.

I very strongly believe that children should be free to know and love both their parents. It is not their business that their parents made a hash of it and can't stand each other any more. Who the child mainly lives with should ideally be determined by the parents.

I cannot phatom why a parent, father or mother, would in any way feel resentful in providing to very best of their ability for their daughter or son. I cannot phatom why a parent wouldn't want to be part of their children's lives.

Sometimes I think there is a bit of wanting to make that child pay for having that Other Person as the Other Parent.

There are women and men who use their children to wage psychological warfare on the other parent without any compuction what that does to their child. To make the other pay for leaving. My ex attempted that a few times over the years.

Children are not chattel. They are not owned by either parent.

<Dad's are not done in by lazy grasping ex wives. They are not paying for the mothers, but for their children. BOTH parents contribute to the upbringing of their children. One parent may earn more, so contributes more.>

There are perhaps a thousand variations on this. However for a child not to experience a fall in the standard of living following divorce, then by default the custodial parent must not experience a fall in the standard of living. So unless the custodial parent has the ability to earn the income level that was lost following divorce the money has to come from somewhere.

That is why men are never really divorced from the ex, because they have to continue to support her and her children.

< I cannot phatom(sic) 'fathom' why a parent wouldn't want to be part of their children's lives.>

I have had contact with men who thought that it would be easier to deal with by walking away and not going back, men who years later have had it come back to haunt them.

<There are women and men who use their children to wage psychological warfare on the other parent without any compuction what that does to their child. To make the other pay for leaving. My ex attempted that a few times over the years.>

Sadly that is true.

<Children are not chattel. They are not owned by either parent.>
Posted by yvonne, Monday, 7 July 2008 8:41:49 PM

Yvonne: "They are not paying for the mothers, but for their children."

Quite untrue, Yvonne. The Act was designed specifically to include a portion for spousal maintenance. The justification was that if the children were to experience no fall in standard of living post-divorce, than the custodial parent (mother) required support that the State was not willing to provide.

There are 5 interested parties in any child support case:
1. the children
2. the father
3. the mother
4. the State, which claims to have consideration of the interests of
5. the taxpayers

As the CSA administers the Acts, the only party whose interests are considered is the State and then only in terms of cost-recovery for single-parent welfare. All other parties are disregarded. I know this, because I have argued precisely that way and had the argument rejected as "irrelevant", by the State (CSA). To put it into perspective: since our separation, my ex-wife has received something in excess of $200,000 in State support, whilst I have been driven to near-bankruptcy by the same State and never accepted a cent in taxpayer money. I work, she chooses not to, despite having 3 degrees up to Masters level (I have no degree)and we both want our kids. I've been forced to become self-employed and taken a very large drop in gross income, purely because the CSA cannot administer the Acts honestly and fairly. Who benefits from that?

The Acts provide for equitable solutions to be arrived at, but the CSA refuses to work with the parents to do so, claiming they are acting in the childrens' interests. In so doing, they create situations that are dysfuntional and counter-productive of that goal.

I can sympathise a little with your situation, but to be honest, few of us are medical specialists with the earning capacity, monomania and time demands implied. The majority of us would very much like to be able to get on with our lives, together with our children and not get driven bankrupt by a dysfunctional State Agency. Why is that so much to ask?