They were incompetent? Yeah, unlike the fathers being held to account for non-payment. Isn't the CSA only called to intervene for non-payers?

As to shared custody. You know, I am all for fathers having a greater role in parenting. Feminism generally has always supported that notion. Also, my own children have had the very best of parenting from their Dad - he's a remarkable man.

However, I know of one father who wanted nothing to do with his infant son and who reduced his work hours so that he wouldn't have to pay anything.

I know of another who had never wanted nor been involved with his child who insisted on 50-50 time and who neglected the little one when in his care. Neglected as in way past bedtime, still out around town, baby not dressed warmly nor fed. The mother still bought all the baby's clothes and food and had to pack enough for the child when father had care.

Also, in effect, hasn't joint or equal time parenting always been possible by private arrangement? Why then did it need to be made into law? Why is that law beneficial to fathers who don't want to pay towards their children's upkeep?

Also, if you are so pleased that men have taken over the agency and they are doing such a stirling job, what's all the continued bitching and moaning about?

Pynchme:"I don't know much about CSA matters"

Obviously, because private collect isn't an option if either parent is receiving a Govt handout. In that case, the CSA is imposed.
The usual course of events for a working-class couple with young kids is something like - they separate, she goes on dole, applies for Housing Commission accommodation, CSA do assessment, he gets lumbered with immediate debt because this process takes up to a month, he is in financial stress because he's had to move and reestablish, can't pay the debt, CSA garnish his wages, he gets depressed, loses his job, debt gets bigger, he now can't work because the debt makes it unviable.
CSA may garnish his bank account, he gets called a deadbeat and sanctimonious prats like yourself take great pleasure in condemning him.
He has a very significant chance of taking his own life.
He rarely sees his kids because he couldn't afford to fight her legal-aid lawyers so he signed the consent form they gave him that said "every second weekend".
Without any money he can't afford a decent place, so he doesn't take them much, especially since he probably has a DVO against him whether he did anything violent or not and she won't let him come near the house and won't show up at Macdonalds to do the handover at the agreed time.

In the meantime, she's got the kids, the dole, plus all the FTB, plus whatever they've managed to screw out of him, plus whatever part-time work she can get without affecting her dole, plus the cheap housing commission flat she always wanted. "It's much nicer than Mum's or Nan's".
She may decide to enrol at uni - Centrelink pay more for that and it satisfies the "activity test" so she doesn't have to make up all those jobs to put down on the form. It's not as if the HECS debt actually has to be repaid...

And she's got sanctimonious prats like you telling the world that she's a "victim" and creating bureaucratic empires devoted to her.

Sancho:"I've asked Rusty Catheter twice if he's divorced, and twice he's kept on posting as though the question was never asked."

And why should he answer because you asked? Who are you to demand answers?

Here's some questions for you: why are you so worried about the opinions of divorced men? What does the reason for the formation of my views matter? If you don't like the views, by all means say so and why you disagree. You can't, of course, it's beyond you, so, like others in the flock of galahs you squawk loudly about nothing at all, trying to distract and derail.
Talk about sad.

When do you plan to stop beating your wife? Has she recovered from the last little "instructional touch-up" you gave her? What about your poor kids? Fancy having to put up with you doing what you do to them, it's disgusting.

You're right, ad hominem is so easy. We can make up anything we like, isn't that fun?

Anti who are you to say what questions one can ask of a user, although the answer is as obvious as the bitterness.

You poor buggers, you’re entrenched in this and raging as life goes on. I get it, I do, not the subject matter but the feeling.

“In the meantime, she's got the kids, the dole, plus all the FTB, plus whatever they've managed to screw out of him, plus whatever part-time work she can get without affecting her dole, plus the cheap housing commission flat she always wanted. "It's much nicer than Mum's or Nan's". She may decide to enrol at uni - Centrelink pay more for that and it satisfies the "activity test" so she doesn't have to make up all those jobs to put down on the form. It's not as if the HECS debt actually has to be repaid...”

Is “She” a good mum Anti?

I always wanted to just stay at home with my kids and would do anything to achieve it. I got a benefit for a few years but my ex (don’t know if you can do it here) paid the mortgage and that came off his child support which I didn’t get anyway since I was on a benefit. When I remarried I signed the house over to him and he said it would be the children’s inheritance if he died.

Well he died and no, he had already sold the house and spent the money. I would prefer to have some government department to rage at, I could have done with the distraction.

pynchme: "hasn't joint or equal time parenting always been possible by private arrangement?"

Lots of things are possible, but when the care of children is inextricably linked to income, the incentive to fight tooth and nail to maintain maximum nights of care is great.

Some people are not going to want equally-shared care for all sorts of reasons, including some fathers who may prioritise work commitments and see that paying more to their ex-wife to care for the children is the best thing for the kids. In the case of a couple where he has a high income and she was not working before the separation that may well be the case.

I have already described the usual trajectory for low socio-economic status couples.

TPP:"I haven’t worked out why the department I am at odds with is doing what it’s doing but they do object to one starting with the Brigadiers and Generals. Field Marshal wont talk to me"

I've always addressed my correspondence directly to the Regional Registrar (State Manager now). I hand deliver each one to her office and have a receipted copy returned. It is her signature at the bottom, after all, so I want to make sure she is apprised fully of the matter. She very probably hands it off to underlings to deal with, but she can't say she didn't know about it.

TPP:"Is “She” a good mum Anti? "

Who knows, Jewels? The chances are that she'd like to think she is and probably tries hard to be. Whether she is or not, he never gets a real chance to be a good dad because once the steamroller starts, he's already on the way to being crushed. In the end, the kids had better hope she's a good mum, because if she isn't, they're off to someone like you - if they even survive.

“Who knows, Jewels? The chances are that she'd like to think she is and probably tries hard to be. Whether she is or not, he never gets a real chance to be a good dad because once the steamroller starts, he's already on the way to being crushed. In the end, the kids had better hope she's a good mum,”

Anti are we again talking custody or shared time here instead of the money involved or does the money prevent, in some way, time with the children?

“…because if she isn't, they're off to someone like you ..”.

God forbid.[smile]