I'd like to get some discussion going on ways to address some of the issues associated with child residency following relationship breakups. I'd like a discussion where different perspectives can be aired without abuse, where issues are raised and potential solutions aired rather than rants by anybody unwilling to consider the other side of the issue - please. I'd prefer to focus the discussion on the middle ground rather than the extreme cases - those cases need to be dealt with but they are not the whole picture.

Much of what I expect to write will be about the finances because this is an area where the government takes a very active role and which policy can be effective, other aspects are less easy to manage.

To open the discussion I propose that "Child Support" adds to the harm suffered by children following seperation as it forces the parents to continue to be involved in each others financial affairs with a resultant perpetuation of conflict.

Estimates of income are provided to the other parent without consent and during the assessment process significant detail must be disclosed. Payers are held accountable for career decisions of the payee over which they have no control. Payee's get bitter as they see former partners hiding income to reduce obligations. Contact with payer parents is limited in some cases to keep it within a child support zone and maximise child support paid.

The child support agency is not allowed to take account of the circumstances which lead to a particular residency arrangement. Someone abandoned by a former partner gets no more than someone who has fought tooth and nail to get the residency from another parent who loves their children.

My current thinking is that if both parents are willing to have the care of their children each parent should be responsible for the costs associated with their children when the children are in their care. If that is to hard then the other parent should have the opportunity to take on more care (and associated cost).

R0bert

OOOh I'm running late, but wanted to provide links to services for dads.

First an article called fatherly advice:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/fatherly-advice/2006/08/30/1156816967623.html

services:

www.beingdad.com.au
www.goodbeginnings.net.au

I hope they work 'cos

www.mensline.org.au

doesn't.

Bye

Scout, thanks. The links do work. The discussion topic does not seem to have attracted any interest so useful links might be a worthwhile alternative.

The Australian Governments Families Portal
http://www.families.gov.au/Internet/famport/famport.nsf/WEB+Portal?OpenForm

Queensland Government Families Links
http://www.communities.qld.gov.au/family/familiesfirst/links/general_links.html

Some links to research papers on families
http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/aboutfacs/programs/families-ResearchPapers.htm

Child protection info
http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/info.html

Federal Magistrates Court
http://www.fmc.gov.au/

R0bert

R0bert

I don't understand why, given that so many want to have a whinge if any articles are posted by women about equality - there seems to be a plethora of disgruntled men with an axe to wield.

Yet, here you have provided a place where they could discuss their problems and experiences in fathering and zip, nada, nothing.

Not, that I'm suggesting these concerned fathers are more interested in denigrating women, but.........

What I have learned from general discussion threads:

"manly" men aren't interested in improving their parenting responsibilities

and

religious aren't interested in animal welfare.

I confess, I am being deliberately facetious, but have to admit to being completely gob-smacked by lack of interest.

Maybe its just the limited demographic of OLO posters?

Scout, I'm surprised as well.

I had hoped to get something going where we could discuss constructive approaches to some of the issues, similar to what you seem to be trying to do with the animal treatment issue.

I do suspect that the General page is not being widely used yet, many of the regulars don't seem to be obvious by their presence.

It is nice to have the opportunity to float topics for discussion.
I recall some time ago issuing a challenge to BD to write an article about aspects of christainity that seemed to be causing a lot of off topic posts and he declined because of the cost of getting one on OLO. Maybe now he'll take up the challenge. I'll have to dig around and find it and try again.

R0bert

Yeah, okay, I'll bite, but no one's going to like what I say.

Firstly a declaration. I've never had any personal dealings with Family Court or child support, so I don't really feel equipped to discuss the matter with any authority. However, having been active for some time in the business of injustices to men, I've had a bit to do with the periphery of the fatherhood movement. In a word, I found their troubles and there plight overwhelming. I found that they are so involved with their own problems that they fail to see the big picture affecting men today and most don't really want to try to understand it.

Besides, there's plenty of good organisations dealing with that specialisation and they now seem to be getting some action for themselves so I don't mess with their business. I do however involve myself with their cause and fight their battles with them if they need help.

Now on to your initial post RObert. There's simply nothing in it to disagree with from my point of view. You've said it all. What more do you want me to say? So I don't engage. Just like I don't engage in a lot of conversations and topics on OLO.

The ones who are missing from this thread are the women who instigate the misery. They're silent. They know they've got a lot to answer for with respect to this subject and like guilty little children, they stay quiet, hoping you won't notice them.

In the meantime, all that you discuss, is being reformed slowly at this point in time with the Family Law and CSA overhauls. A world first by the way and everybody's waiting to see what happens. Will it get better? Who knows?

Are we harming kids? Of course we are. All you people with kids who are now divorced have ripped their little hearts out. You've rained on their birthday cake. They're going to be underconfident in relationships and lack trust for the rest of their lives. The harm is done and can't be undone. The wheel is bent.

Maximus, thanks for the response. It is nice to know that someone agrees with me on that idea. It's a long way from current policy.

In your travels on the fringes of this stuff have you spotted other changes which you think might lead to a less damaging system?

I'd also like to see residency default to the parent who stays in the area where the couple was living before seperation if one parent decides to move away from the area (subject to no substantiated ongoing violence etc).

I've heard of too many cases where someone has forced the residency issue by moving away from the other parent (I've been on the end of that one myself) making shared parenting difficult or impossible. Often the move seems to be a sea change to an area with few employment opportunities.

R0bert

Children and family's are being sold out by the tens of thousands for the good old mighty dollar, The divorce rate is driven by each individual state as they seek to limit the time a non-custodial parent can spend with there children. In the united states it is the only place where a parent can go from a full time parent to a part time visitor in the blink of an eye and a stroke of a pen. How many really understand the motivation of the family courts.

Did you know there is in fact a bounty put on the heads of our children, Rest assured its real, The family courts in the united states is broke like a train wreck and it is on a crash course with the best interest of OUR children and there futures.

(THE MIGHTY DOLLAR) That is created out of federal funding has become a very lucrative business for each and every individual state also referred to as welfare reform (Commonly Referred to as Title 4D) while the political figures smoke the truth with BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD.

WHAT CAN WE DO, Rest assured the wheels are in motion, on 09/01/2006 A complaint was filed (FEDERAL LEVEL) With the inspector General in Washington DC, On 09/01/2006 I did receive a referral from the IG,s Office to the United States Department of Justice ( Civil Rights Division). Being in most divorce cases the civil and constitutional rights of BOTH parents involved in divorce proceedings are being trampled on by the abuse that runs far and wide in the Judicial system. The discretion must be removed and accountability put in place.

I will let the News Story's that have been done over the last 11 months speak for them selves as I will place a few links to ABC,NBC & CBS News story's, I as well have created a spot of gathering for people from all across the united states. Even though I reside in Michigan every one knows this is a national problem.

News Story,s

http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?sectionfiltered=local&id=4181556

http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?sectionfiltered=local&id=4019070

http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?sectionfiltered=local&id=4032997




Petition can be found at
www.fixthefoc.com

RObert, Scout, not following you ;) but I thought this was an interesting topic that I don't know much about, so atm I'm reading all of your links you provided.

Maximus I also agree with you.

I agree that divorce always is upsetting for kids, and should be the last resort.
Sometimes one can't win- when staying together is like living between two fires for a kid. Awww the poor little cuties.

I also agree that men sometimes get a bad deal, things for them are just a tough and sometimes tougher than for women.

Also a question- but perhaps the answer will be in one of your links: when you file for divorce, do you have to submit a parenting plan at the same time? Or is that not done in Australia?

Sorry for my ignorance- I have no divorced friends with kids so never really talked about it with anyone.

I'm off to read the articles now- these were just a few words that I am interested but had not much time to read this yet. Great topic.

Celivia, welcome. I'm glad to hear that you and your friends have managed to avoid putting kids through the turmoil of divorce. I hope it is better for kids than living in a home of constant fighting but a happy home is far and away a better deal for all concerned.

While I have the strong impression that men get a worse deal in the current system than women I don't think that is a universal truth, I know enough women that have been done over fairly effectively as well. My impression is that the system is set up to let the most unscrupulous win but that the support services are targetted to women.

I am hoping to keep the thread focussed on what we can do to minimise the harm to children when breakups do occur. My first point was based on the idea that the current child support system prolongs the bitterness and conflict between parents.

I don't know if recent changes require a parenting plan. When my divorce went through we had consent orders in place but the person granting the divorce just asked a few questions of each person who turned up to check that somebody was taking care of the kids. We've since had a forced change in those orders and just recently a massive change in residency arrangements not covered by those consent orders.

My impression is that "best interests of the child" is not taken seriously by anybody in the system but is a tool used to allow them to ignore any concept of fairness or justice when they want to. It's one of those vague feel good sayings that carries little real meaning because it is so hard to determine.

If the best interests of the child was really the biggy then divorces (and seperation) might be harder to get. Parents who played silly buggers with access would get pulled into line very quickly and with real consequences.

R0bert

dougmrich, thanks for your info. In Australia this stuff is run at a federal level. The states run child protection and property issues for defacto split ups (I think) and that seems to be about the main role.

Paternity fraud is an issue here as well although the jury is still out on just how much of it is around. My understanding is that in about 30% of cases tested the nominated father is not the biological one but it should be safe to assume that most of those tested were situations where there was serious doubt about the paternity of the children.

Of particular concern is moves to make paternity testing illegal without having maternal consent or a court order. The first is unlikely to happen where the mother is deliberately cheating and the later is expensive to obtain and the level of proof required may be difficult to obtain.

Neither option allows the nominated father to quietly get a test done and find out for certain. Both risk significant alienation from children if his concerns are unfounded.

The Australian Law Reform Commission claim privacy concerns as the reason for the proposal (mum's privacy is invaded if people find out she was cheating on a partner) but at the same time support the requirement for extremely intrusive financial disclosure during divorce settlements.

R0bert

Sharing parental responsibilities has a long way to go. Reform of family law and CSA are too little too late for many, and it remains to be seen whether these actually help to share parental responsibilities in more equitable ways.

There are so many things wrong with the system, it’s hard to know where to start, but I guess the one issue that causes all other dysfunction is its assumption of supremacy of one parent over the other. When there is conflict between the parents and the courts are called upon to decide, fathers discover they have no rights.

I’ve been luckier than the average divorced father. Two of my three children reside with me, no thanks to a just law. At the same time I am forced to contribute financially beyond the actual costs for the child not residing with me. I’ve given up on any notion of equality when it comes to parenting and the law. The last straw for me, was when a fair private support agreement was set aside in favour of a CSA formula. In my mind there was no doubt this was just another decision that was in the best interests of the mother, not children.

I feel sorry for the young men who are only just slightly becoming aware there is something rotten about the marriage contract, they are yet to fully realise that the resultant stench is as easily misattributed to them, as paternity itself. I wonder how many of them will be educated to make an informed choice (one of the dwindling few for men), and how many will be given the respect they deserve?

Happy Father’s Day.

How was that for “middle ground” R0bert?

And now for something a little more radical ;-)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/hungry-for-a-husband-lets-go-shopping/2006/09/01/1156817097674.html

R0bert

I have enjoyed reading the contributions to this thread. Although I haven't had personal experience of custody battles, I have seen plenty of people 'done over' by the current system. And I agree that the way Family Law runs is that it favours either women without any from of assessment or the most scurrilous. Men are hardly innocents either - it takes two to destroy a relationship.

For example, I recall when my engineering professor had to race off overseas when his wife literally kidnapped his son, who he had been raising for all of the boy's 10 years. He eventually got his son back - but the toll on both himself and his son must be immeasureable.

There is no doubt that the need for reform is paramount and at a grass roots level. This stereotyping of men and women's roles is at the basis of many of our problems. If men want to be considered are responsible parents - then they better start putting themselves where their mouths are. And if women want to be treated as independent, well then stop treating men as meal tickets and pick up the tab. I loath women like Susan Sangster/Peacock whatever her frigging surname is, who literally prey on wealthy men - they make the rest of us look bad. They contribute nothing and call themselves socialites - yeah well if you combine 'social' and 'parasite' - that's what you get. But then I have to question the men who are stupid enough to marry them as well.

Sorry, bit off topic, but the Rose Hancocks and the idiots who marry them really get up my nose.

Back on topic, R0bert, I am glad the links I provided above work and will keep on reading this thread. If I find anything worthy to contribute I will do so.

Ciao

Residency and Access are now called Shared Parenting. The people choses these words because they are softer and less harsh.

FACT: Men and women have babies if they have enough sex. Men and women might not want to stay with each other for the rest of their life. The children have no choice in the matter. They are stuck with their mum and dad whether they like itornot.
Get the grief, anger and resentment out of our lives, we all go through it. I do not consider just because my ex earns over $300k that I should get the amount they tell me I am entitled to. I have worked out how much it costs to look after children annually and halved it. Because he wants to keep them in Private schooling, I have mediated that he pays for all costs associated with that and other things that have been normal in predivorce. I have the right to acquire a life and monetary security as a single mother and not be responsiblefor the whole upbringing of our children. He is able to be promoted and travel due to not having the children full time. I am not and that has beentaken into account that for the next 6 years I am the main carer of our children and my career has limitations due to this. Apart from beneficiaries and a few other things it isdone with. I dont have to speak to him or see him, we cantstand the sight of each other. It is possible and now it is made so because of the new laws.P.S: He has no intention of paying and I know this but it is a debt incurred for the rest of his life and his new wifes life. There will be money for the children in the future and that is something for them. I am too proud to not succeed in life so his money was never the point. This is what divorced people must realise it isnt the money that drives you.

alphafemale, shared parenting is a very specific type of residency. Not a general term to describe all residency/access arrangements.

It's one where both parents share as far as possible all aspects of parenting their children. One where the children get to learn the lessons that both parents are able to teach them and both parents get the joys and pains of being a parent. If done well both also get a chance to have a life in their downtime.

It's sad that you and your ex can't stand the site of each other, tough for you and your kids that it's got to that point.

Just in case my push for changes to the governments role in this has created a wrong impression I'll mention that my ex had dinner here with my son and I this evening. We had a pleasant afternoon. Mostly we try and put aside our hurts for the sake of our son, it seems important to him to see us treating each other with respect and courtesy. We'll never be a family again but he does not need to feel torn between us.

Cheers
R0bert

I applaud you Robert and your ex-wife. (Ironic,we try so hard in divorce but not marriage). Counselling was offered but he said no. Our children had severe problems with 17y/o fiancee and dad doesnt care. I am not responsible for him, I am responsible for myself and my children.Sometimes there are more than the ex partner and children in the circle of problems, mainly the new girl/boyfriend. When you first marry you are intense never thinking of not being together. The Stress Scale rates a partner leaving to be the same as them dying, if this is realised it can allow time to heal and deal rationally with divorce issues. The government doesn't allow intense emotions to come into play, at this very fragile time of life, dealing with the past can bring about emotions that should not be used in divorce and child cases but are. This is normal and there needs to be long term counselling for people who are in this place. Pushing them into a divorce and family court at the most unbalanced time of their life is as irresponsible as allowing a person who is not of sound mind sign their life away. It is possible not to be in the most stable position to make the best decision for themselves and their children. The courts do not allow us the time to grieve and talk to a counselling mediator to clear our feelings and emotions, while working on the case over a period of time. I am not talking about the generalised public that can do divorce easily, I am talking about the cases where bitterness lives in them. Counselling for men and women to work on themselves is needed to help get them back to life. No one is ever going to be fully happy, but do you consider divorce cases would be a little easier on everyone if we got rid of some of the hate and anger before we ended a large part of our life?This is generalised and not intended for extreme circumstance cases.

This is where I am in my fight with the courts as reported by the media

Man takes FOC case to State CapitolMore than $80,000 in child support paid to child that wasn't his
By Jeff Piechowski
LANSING (WJRT) - (05/17/06)--He paid more than $80,000 in child support for nearly 14 years, even after paternity tests showed that child was not his. Now Doug Richardson has taken his fight from Bay County to the State Capitol.

Back in March, Richardson finally came to a settlement that said he would no longer have to pay support.

But $80,000 later, Richardson and a friend in dealing with a similar situation have now taken their cause to lawmakers.

Richardson and Doug DeMoss of the Detroit area have teamed up to form fixthefoc.com, the FOC, being the Friend of the Court.

They want lawmakers to create equality in family law and to create awareness that judicial discretion in certain cases can devastate lives.

Thus, the case of Richardson, who after finding out in 1992 that he was not the father of the then 5-year-old boy, but was ruled by a Bay County judge to continue paying child support.

What made matters worse for Richardson was that after his ex-wife left the child with his biological father for four years, he was then ordered to pay support to the biological father.

Richardson says there are more of these cases out there, and he is just beginning the first step in trying to get the support of legislators.

You can see the abc12 report by clicking on the video icon above. You will need Windows Media Player to view this video. You can get it FREE by clicking here. NOTE: Video clips will only be available for 7-days from the date they were created. ALSO: Video clips may play in a separate window, without audio, on Mac OS X machines. abc12.com is aware of this issue and is working with the video player vendor to correct it as soon as possible.Copyright 2006 ABC Inc., WJRT-TV Inc.


ABC12 News Team

Jeff Piechowski

alphafemale, thanks. Relationship breakdown is a really tough process for anybody who was serious about the relationship in the first place.

I'm not sure that I understand where you are at in your journey but if you are still having to deal with the pain and hurt then best wishes with that.

R0bert

Scout,

You make some good points and I congratulate you on “And if women want to be treated as independent, well then stop treating men as meal tickets and pick up the tab.” It is equally pleasing to note that you are critical of women who abuse the system.

But I must object to your suggestion that some men deserve to be abused by some women (“… I have to question the men who are stupid enough to marry them as well”). . I am very disappointed with you in suggesting this. These high profile miscreants tend to become role models for others and before long, slide into acceptable common practice (if not already).

No-one deserves it. Same goes for abused women. You would be the last person I would expect to make such ill-considered statements – it is tantamount to saying some women deserve to be raped.

No, the system must be fixed to provide unbiased protection to both men and women, from themselves and each other.

Reform of the marriage act is essential - no-fault divorce is a farce. While I believe there are valid reasons for ending a marriage, assigning the majority of family assets and the children to the mother with no questions asked, is a source of great moral hazard. The difference in the law as applied to men and women is that when women lie, it is still in the best interests of children. Not so for men. Women are even protected from themselves e.g. they are actively supported in committing paternity fraud. Outside of a few rare exceptions, men get no protection from family law, even when they are clearly the better parent. Family law is almost always against men. Men are punished, women are not. This is typical for all men and women – not just the bad ones, but all who come before the court. It is routine and systematic.

Ok Seeker, I get where you are coming from. I certainly didn't deserve being abused by my ex. However, had I more self esteem at the time, I would not have married him in the first place. Anyway, that's past.

My point was that there are degrees in culpability - like a car accident. In some, rare cases, there are 100% innocents, but in most cases both have contributed to the eventual breakdown in the relationship. I have to question mature men who marry young vacuous women - do they really think its love? I'm not condoning either - and in degrees of blame I see these women as total parasites. No doubt about that.

However, Seeker, as someone who has crossed paths with me many times on OLO you know that I criticise women as well. My above post was certainly not the first. Nor will it be the last. Sometimes I get the impression that my posts are selectively read - certain males just looking to score a few points and ignoring the entire context.

Cheers m'dear

As for family law - there is no doubt that it needs reform, however, blanket statements like: "men are punished; women are not" is misleading and untrue. Women suffer at the hands of manipulative men also.

As I have stated on other threads, traditional views of male and female roles as carers and breadwinners no longer apply and family law needs to catch up. There are female breadwinners and male carers and custody laws need to reflect this.

For this reason people like R0bert are vital - he is attempting to discuss ways more equitable decisions can be made. Why? Because it is our children's welfare that is being destroyed and while we remain stuck in a cycle of blame, reform is unlikely to be achieved and our children continue to suffer the consequences of OUR behaviour - we are all culpable.

In 1848 Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto. In it he identified the traditional family as being of the bourgeois class, the oppressors, and declared that traditional family was to be abolished. This, was hoped, would destroy traditional patriarchal inheritance and privilege.

In the 1960s Labor/Labour parties aligned strongly with Marxism and formed ideological bonds with communist educational institutions. During this time too, women became "liberated" from biological slavery through the invention and introduction of the contraceptive pill - second wave feminism was born in educational institutions and declared that men/husbands/fathers were an oppressor class and traditional marriage was oppressive to women. Gullible women believed it by the millions.

In 1972, Labor, Gough Whitlam, was elected. In 1975, Labor introduced the Family Law Act and "no fault divorce" to streamline and expedite divorces - in the best interests of the child, you understand. Soon after that, Family Courts were established.

In the '80s and '90s feminists denigrated and maligned men/husbands/fathers telling women they were oppressed. Women's refuges were created and run by feminists. Structures were established, Legal Aid, single mother's benefits, child care centers, etc, to permit divorcing women easy access to social services. The state took on the role of the husband/father. Child support payments were created, this would stop divorced men from having further family by keeping them broke.

Put the pieces together. This is a no-brainer. Family Courts were established to abolish traditional marriage. Legal, media and research organisations were created to spin the message. Courts systematically removed the man from the family, destroying patriarchal inheritance and biological lineage. Removing men from their families destroyed traditional patriarchies, made women and children dependent upon the state and put children into Marxist educational institutions without parental guidance and women into the workforce.

Bingo - about a half of all marriages have ended in divorce, bourgeois privilege destroyed, patriarchy smashed - EQUALITY! Marxist success.

This is not a conspiracy theory. Destruction of the traditional family is an overtly and openly stated objective of Marxism and is practised throughout the world by left leaning governments everywhere.

Recent report - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=397647&in_page_id=1770

Maximus, just asssuming for the moment that you are correct that it is a goal of left leaning governments to destroy the family unit and assuming that we are unlikely to stop that trend anytime soon what do we need to do to minimise the harm to kids and parents which results?

I doubt that we will get any kind of consensus on the motivations behind the setup of the current system nor are we likely to see any widespread acceptance in the near future of significant tightening of access to divorce.

What can we do to within the current climate which has a chance of making the system less harmfull to those caught up in it?

R0bert

Unfortunately Maximus you are right on the money, In the united states its referred to as welfare reform, commonly known as Title 4-D. Its much larger then most can fathom. The very first thing one needs to except is the true corruption and motivation. Some facts can be found at www.mich.gov website to show the validity of the true profits that are received in incentives to each and every state. In the united states the federal incentives are 66%. the federal government reimbursed for the collection of child support, that's 66 cents on a dollar. Bottom line the more family's that are broken up, the more divorces that take place the more federal incentives the state will receive. each and every year the federal government puts out extra bonuses for the states to compete for, the states with the highest collection gains custody of the bonuses. Keep in mind the states do not have to account for what they do with these funds, They simply place them in the states general fund.

Another fine example is the collected and undistributed child support funds, In the united states its now in excess of $367 Billion. this too can be seen at the Michigan government web-site. The true goal is to drive all middle class custodial parents, mostly woman to a poverty level to take advantage of the welfare incentives so they can as well intercept the payments as welfare reimbursement. Meaning like in my case, my ex and the biological father were welfare recipients, so in turn the support payments that I was making was sent directly to the state of Michigan, not only did they receive the payments I was making but the federal funding of 66%. Very lucrative business they have developed, as I said the IRS don't hold a candle the to family courts system.

Mr Douglas M Richardson

dougmrich@yahoo.com
www.fixthefoc.co

Scout,

Women may lose out financially by choosing to divorce. Their children may suffer for the same reasons. Despite that, divorce may well still be the answer. No doubt about that. For whatever reason, people sometimes get it wrong, and should be able to make corrections to their life no matter how painful.

But while family law should not encourage family breakup, it does so simply because it rewards women. If there are children, they’ll get the children and significantly more than 50% of family assets. More often than not, women will be advantaged by such a formula, and find it “empowering” even when the perceived advantages are sure to be short-lived. Then there’s welfare benefits and child support, to ensure that no matter how silly the impulsive decision may have been, how ridiculous her insecurity or perceived injustice of his x hours of housework, compared to her 2x, that she will be taken care of. Whether we like it or not, there ARE women out there who still think all they need to do is have a child.

It is no secret that family law will side with the children’s carer. It doesn’t really care who the biological father is. Hell, in it’s seemingly less rational moments it will award child support from the child’s social father to it’s biological father, just as our American friend dougmrich, is keen to point out. It apparently has no qualms about awarding child support to a mother who’s son is in the total care of the state as a convicted murderer.

But will fathers ever be primary carers, and mothers, through free choice, slaves to paid work and corporate culture to support their home husbands doing unpaid work? Herein lies the challenge for western government policy – how to confuse and subvert so that we become more dependant on the state. The unanswered question for men – who’s to dig the coal and who to mind the children?

Robert,
Shared parenting is the answer you seek.

Seeker, shared care should be the default position but it's not the sum of the answer.

- The current system takes little account of actions people take to undermine shared care such as moving away from the other parents local. There are other ways to make shared care not viable, manipulation of the kids (PAS), silly games at changeover time etc.

- The current system still leaves the parents entwined in each others finances shared care or not.

- The court system does not seem to have any kind of complaints department where a magistrates findings can be reviewed without massive expense to the party concerned about the legality of findings. I'd like to see some system where if you believed part of a decision was outside the authority of the court or had other major flaws you could lodge a complaint and have an internal complaints department check to see if there was a problem.

- People who try and settle things amicably with a minimum of legal involvement seem to find themselves on the wrong end of things if the other party plays dirty. If the government wants people to do this as civily as possible it should support people who try to do so.

I'm guessing that non of this will be news to you.

R0bert

Unfortunately R0bert, none of that is news to me. Time for a proper counter-revolution.

Seeker I don't tend to trust revolutions, they seem to have a habit of replacing one tyrany with a slightly worse one which still hurts those it was supposed to help.

We do need to increase awareness of just how harmful and unjust what is being done is to those caught up in it.

I also think we need to get honest women on side. We need those feminists who do want equality rather than the upper hand to see the damage being done to their cause by maternal preference and by a system that seems to treat women as less responsible for their actions and choices than men. If we are about more than self interest then we need to show that we care about the times that good women suffer injustice in this system. The pain is no less for a woman who loses almost everything to a scheming ex than it is for a man.

What viable changes can we seek to the current system to minimise the harm it does? I've suggested a number of items (which nobody has rebutted yet), are there other items which have a chance of making a difference and which a politicians minder might consider viable enough to run with.

R0bert

'In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act. ... Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.' (George Orwell)

"A crisis occurs, sometimes lasting for decades. This exceptional duration means that incurable structural contradictions have revealed themselves (reached maturity) and that, despite this, the political forces which are struggling to conserve and defend the existing structure itself are making every effort to cure them, within certain limits, and to overcome them. These incessant and persistent efforts ... form the terrain of the 'conjunctural' and it is upon this terrain that the forces of opposition organise." (GRAMSCI, Prison Notebooks, 178)

But then again ...

"People can accept the prevailing order because they are compelled to do so by devoting their time to 'making a living', or because they cannot conceive another way of organising society, and therefore fatalistically accept the world as it is. This, moreover, assumes that the question why people should accept a particular social order is the only legitimate question to ask. It can be claimed that an equally legitimate question is why should people not accept a particular social order?" (Strinati, 1995: 174)

RObert, you keep asking for bandaids. "I'd like to get some discussion going on ways to address some of the issues associated with child residency following relationship breakups" and "what do we need to do to minimise the harm to kids and parents?"

This is what I meant by men not being able to see past their own pain. They are looking for relief for their symptoms, but fail to address the cause of the disease. There is no relief from these symptoms of human suffering and hurt. There isn't anything that can be done to minimise the devestation to children. That's why nobody is giving you an answer.

Put it this way - if you get a thorn in your foot, which hurts like billy-o, what do you do about it?

Correct answer - take it out.

Wrong answer - leave it in there, take pain killers, put a bandaid on it and hope it goes away.

That's what you seem to be doing to me. Actively looking for the wrong answer and that's because you're asking the wrong questions.

In solving any problem, the first step is to identify that problem and define its cause. The second step is to create change the things causing the problem. When the problem is overcome, you get relief.

You can put as many bandaids as you like on this divorce and separation issue and it's not going to help anybody. What you have to do is to get rid of the Family Law Act as it stands today, and in particular, no-fault-divorce.

To do that in a democracy, you have to educate the people about the problem and let them figure out how to change it. And that's where I come in - that's what I do.

One day you folks will wake up to what's going on and then YOU can all fix it. I don't assume the position of telling any of you what to do.

Continued...

Continued from above...

In my opinion, there is absolutely no point in putting bandaids on a cancer - it's best to cut it out. That's the reason I didn't want to engage in this topic in the first place, because it leads nowhere, it solves nothing, I've read it all before, and it's very frustrating. And what's even worse, is that you aren't even trying to fix the problem. All you want to do is live comfortably on your knees with it and reduce the hurt.

No RObert, I'm not going to help you do that.

I'd prefer that you stood up on your own two feet and set about fixing the issue.

maximus,

"Put it this way - if you get a thorn in your foot, which hurts like billy-o, what do you do about it?

Correct answer - take it out.

Wrong answer - leave it in there, take pain killers, put a bandaid on it and hope it goes away."

It appears that you tend to think the answer is to keep moaning about the horrible people who you think planted the thorn patch (probably ignoring the thorn seeds dribbling out of your backpack).

I'm in the middle of that thorn patchand I look at the patch and think - there is no practical way for me to clean up the whole thing in the short term (and if I do there will still be loose thorns around anyway).

I then get rid of the thorn in my foot, stick a band aid on it, take a panadol, put my shoes on and maybe clear enough of a path to help those behind me get through the patch with less difficulty.

We are stuch with some of the paternalistic and sexist attitudes that have created this mess for a while yet. No major political party really supports a genuine fix so I support doing what we can to make it more bearable. At the same time I work towards making people more aware of the problem and breaking down some of the stereotypes of men and marriage breakdown.

Your not working to change anything other than to reinforce the perceptions that those who support the current system have of men.
Stop kidding yourself.

R0bert

Unbelievable, band aids, and thorns, This is the real world we are dealing with yes the problem needs to be cut out. I AM TAKING ACTION, The real problem is corruption, governmental corruption period. It all about federal funding, while men and woman keep pointing fingers the states are destroying our children's free right to grow to adult hood, Wake up and smell the coffee. I look through these post just to check and remind myself just how naive some people are. If you really want to make a difference you better be willing to put your $ss on the line. If you care enough to see what putting your $ss on the line is take the time to follow these links to the NBC,ABC and CBS story's. This is how you demand change. If you are going to preach it live it.


http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?sectionfiltered=local&id=4032997

http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?sectionfiltered=local&id=4019070

http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?sectionfiltered=local&id=4181556

Or just type in (dougmrich or dougmrich@yahoo.com )in any search engine, Blow your own mind with the reality of the family court system. I am not saying I have all the answers, but I am taking action.

Doug, some of the issues are different here in Australia. Rather than states grabbing for money our federal government uses child support to reduce the burden on welfare (although the payer has no control over the work choices of the payee).

The whole issue of child support obligations for non biological parents seems to be a mine field from what I've read on the topic. The general premise seems to be - if you potentially have have a paternal bond with a child you might end up with a child support obligation. There is also concern about attempts to restrict access to paternity testing (I've commented on those elsewhere).

The person who has a one night stand and leaves behind some genetic material can get a child support obligation dispite having no say in the issue of the foetus being carried to term and the guy who unknowingly raises someone elses child can gather the same obligation (talk about having your cake and eating it).

What do we do about it? I'm asking for an exchange of ideas to bandaid the existing system to minimise the harm it does on the basis that I don't think any government is going to toss the whole thing out anytime soon. I've not seen serious proposals for a replacement system if the current one is tossed out either.

In the case of paternal responsibility I'd like it to only apply where the father is given a clear choice regarding the conception of the child and where the genetic material is his or has been used with his agreement (he can't supply usable genetic material and the couple decide together to use donated sperm). I'd also like to see that responsibility be tied to the opportunity and willingness to be involved in the childs life.

I don't see why a dad who can't play a meaningful role in a childs life because of decisions the mother makes should have an obligation to support that child (outside of substantiated risk to the childs safety). Ditto in cases where it goes the other way.

R0bert

I guess RObert it really depends on why the actual couple split to begin with does,nt it?

Some women are subjected to abject poverty, financial control, another form of emotional abuse,and horrific violence..to say that these women should not have a social security system to help them thru is just a stuffing nonsense and i dont propose that you do really.

You cannot generalise and say you dont want to hear of extreme cases and this and that because most breakups come about for fairly extreme reasons...and yes some women and men walk away for equally insignifcant reasons(bored or didnt like the responsibility) but they are not represenative of the majority of breakups...

Please enlighten me if im wrong, but are you implying that women should not get government help in these cases.?

I think your proposal is a bit idealistic.. rarely are parents who split that well balanced or very well disposed towards each other that a commonsense and mature approach such as shared custody with both meeting equal costs would work in very many cases..

As always the main carer has many costs to meet and also..in most cases jobs are extremely limited .Employers do not normally prefer to accomadate the special circumstances of single parents.
And it is not fair ro ask children to didvide time equally because a child needs to have one home.This si essential for emotional security ,stability etc.Anything else means they become pawns who are played with at the pleasure of their self absorbed parents.

I hope Robert I am not misinterptering your point here and please let me know if I am.

I am one such example I do believe of whom you speak.

OZGIRL, sorry I had not noticed your post here.

I don't share your view that most break ups are from extreme situations - I can't back that up with stats, just a viewpoint.

Social welfare is a different issue to requiring a former partner to take responsibility for somebody elses choices. The taxpayer through our elected representatives gets to decide who we will provide support to and how much support will be provided, a former spouse does not. The system breeds resentment and bitterness which all to easily flows onto the kids.

Likewise the current system encourages a winner takes all approach, grab the kids and you have a better chance of getting the house, car, and plenty of superannuation. Change your mind about the kids after settlement and keep the assetts (except in extroardinary situations).

I'd like a system where damaging behaviour resulted in less rather than more, move away from the ex for anything except for substantiated safety issues and either loose the kids or free the ex of finacial obligation. Refuse to co-operate with shared care same deal.

My understanding is that most research on the topic of shared care indicates that kids in shared care do better than those in single parent families so I don't accept the idea that one home is more important than involvement with two parents. Likewise I tend to think that the kids have an overall better chance of spending some of their time with a caring responsible parent. At the moment there is little to ensure that they end up with the saner parent unless one is seriously dangerous.

The parents also get better job opportunities and more chance to unwind kid free, more opportunity to date and do other single stuff so are likely to be in a better state for their kids when the kids are with them.

I'd like the government to use it's involvement to reduce causes of ongoing conflict and encourage responsible behaviour, pretty much a reversal of what the've done in recent times.

R0bert

Hi, RObert and others,
I have to admit I didn’t read through all the posts thoroughly but read most, because I lacked the time to do so. Just thought I'd finally post here before I have to go.

I have been thinking a little about this discussion though, because it is an interesting one and very valid in this day and age of so many divorces. I don’t really have much to add, just a thought I had:

Perhaps the answer is not tightening of access to divorce but perhaps people need to be pre-marriage educated seriously- so make it a little bit harder to get married in the first place.

People sometimes get married out of the blue, without much thought, not only because they love each other, to please parents or grandparents, find marriage romantic, get married for financial reasons or even perhaps to gain status, oh and yes to start a family.

If there was some compulsory pre-marriage course couples had to attend in where all main responsibilities were set out clearly also regarding to future children, people might think about getting married a bit more seriously before they say “I do”.

The proposal question should not be: Wanna get married? But rather: wanna do the pre-marital course with me?

Perhaps it could include a lesson on the problem RObert addresses and the discussion of how intensive parenting plan works. It could also include pre-marital counselling.

I know of a 19 year old girl who got married because “It is all so romantic”. She knew her boyfriend for just six months. Really- people should be made to think about marriage, both men and women.

I know pre-marital education will probably take the romance out of it a bit, but it will also take away the idealistic veil and approaches marriages in a down-to-earth way.

It is no answer for existing marriages, but with raising divorce rates perhaps not such a terrible idea. It can save future children from having to go through the turmoil of a divorce.

Celivia, good points. I'd like to see a lot more ability for people to determine up front what they are getting themselves into. Most of the following has little to do with the original topic other than a belief that what we are doing now contributes to the harm to children.

The ability of human beings to conceive children regardless of any formal process does complicate matters somewhat so there are parts of this that quality pre marriage counselling can't touch but that does not negate the advantages of fixing what we can.

I'd like to see the commencement of any relationship with legal consequences be a formal step. I think that for many marriage is becoming something of a joke, the divorce rate has made a mokery of the idea of a union for life. Defacto relationships seem to have become a minefield in their own right. People drift into a legal relationship with far reaching consequences with no formal step, with rules which are open to interpretation and distortion. At some point after you have been seeing each other for some time you may be liable to loss of property and other consequences if it falls apart. How many nights a week does somebody stay over, how much do you have your finances mixed, etc before you are a defacto couple rather than just boyfriend and girlfriend (or BB/GG for the gays)?

Maybe have that counselling part of a formal stage of making a relationship legally significant. It may not be very romantic but then breakups are not real romantic either.

R0bert

I am going to slide to the left here on the discussions to give an opinion on other ways to help the system in the future.
We are a country of high single parenting. The benefits are $4000 in 2006 and $5000 in 2007. This is not a helpful gesture to have a baby.

Our future adults are from mixed relationships and there is not enough counselling and help for them to make choices in areas due to sociological and psychological environment.
I suggest that we start young. We teach about sex, looking after an egg, STD's and career advice but do we teach about creating values in your life, financial advice and independence, relationships and what are the major reasons for breakups, single parenting and the down side not just the ups. Confidence building workshops for the young, The future advice that might go in one ear and out the other but will hit them one day hopefully. Most of us were not advised what to do in a relationship we just looked to our peers and family and that is not always the best place to look. We can involve more then our present in finding solutions, this is a long term issue and we need to start realising that a lot of our problems come from not having enough information or choices when young. This is not a final solution but there needs to be more than waiting for the lightbulb to break before you buy another one to fix it. Knowledge is a step in the freedom of choice

alphafemale, good points. I especially like the idea of better informing people of the less visible side of single parenting.
Some of the guys I've talked to in mens groups would like to see education about the child support formula given to young guys.

Which benefit were you refering to in the figure you mentioned? I've been paying more than that in so called child support and the government has been handing out even more. I saw a while ago that one of the banks had calculated that it cost around $6,100 per year to raise a pre adolescent boy, I guess that assumes no private school fees, limited out of hours care and no other major unusual expenses.

R0bert