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