In NSW alone, 30,000 children born in the last ten years, have no father with whom they could have a `meaningful relationship' and regular contact, and with financial responsibilty for their maintenance.

`Figures released by the NSW Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages show 29,144 babies born between 1999 and 2009 do not have a father identified on their birth certificate. Social demographer, Hugh Mackay said the number of single parent families was steadily growing. "Today, about 24 per cent of households with children are single parent households,''Mr Mackay told The Sunday Telegraph.
"(Single families) are still a big phenomenon and a growing phenomenon because 35 per cent of contemporary marriages end in divorce. "It is still more common for the mother to be the single-parent,'' Mr Mackay said. The Australian Institute of Family Studies released a report last month predicting Australia will have almost 1.2 million sole-parent households by 2026 - an increase of 42 per cent since 2001.'
Relationships Australia CEO Anne Hollonds said fathers may not want to be identified on a birth certificate if their child is the result of an affair or they do not want to pay child support. "Commonly it is because the father doesn't want to pay child support or could be married to somebody else,'' she said.

Further questions can be raised regarding how much this is costing Australian taxpayers to support the children of errant fathers who evade their financial responsibilities in this way. Many others apply for limited `contact' or even `Equal Care' as a means of similarly evading such financial responsibilities. So again the Australian taxpayer has again to pick up the father's bill.

ChazPL:"`Equal Care' as a means of similarly evading such financial responsibilities"

So, if a mother is left holding the baby it can only be because the father is a deadbeat and if the father wants to be involved and carry half the burden of rearing the child it's only to avoid paying the mother.

Nice summation of the NCSMC position, dear. Elspeth must be so proud...

How does the motto go again? "Seeking a free ride for mothers who don't want fathers around" is something pretty close, IIRC.

And what do the Ping Pong children feel about the gross disruptions to their lives from `equal care', Antiseptic?. The Male Supremacists and Patriarchal Chauvinists of the FR Movement must be very proud of you too that you have evaded the major issue on evasion of financial responsibilities for their children by so many fathers. If the NSW figures are extended across the country and up to the age of 18 years, then at any one time there are approximately 310,000 children in Australia for whom their `fathers' are evading financial responsibility and who the Australian taxpayers are having to subsidise. Thats not fair to those fathers who take such financial responsibilities for their children, nor to the taxpayers, and most of all to the children themselves, who can suffer serious financial neglect by their fathers, a severe form of abuse per se'.

ChazP:"what do the Ping Pong children feel about the gross disruptions to their lives from `equal care',"

I'd imagine that varies for all sorts of reasons. I'm sure that some kids look forward to spending time with one parent more than the other for all sorts of reasons and that may well vary over time. On the whole, in my own case it has worked well for all of us. Once the financial issue was taken out of the equation the mother had a much harder time getting the State involved and so became more willing to negotiate with goodwill. The kids benefit because they have parents who are less tressed and more relaxed and hence more fun to be around

It's all about goodwill, not the horrible tug-of-war that you would make of it.

If CS is making men avoid contact with their children, surely it is time to examine why we do it the way we do? Abolishing the CSA would be a good place to start.

What an utter rubbish post, best described as hate mail, or should it be male?. I could have had some sympathy for your argument, if it were not so biased, & dripping with hate.

You give a prediction by an activist group for 15 years into the future, & treat it as fact. Come on now love, even ladies can't get away with that stuff.

Then you give us the same activists reason for no fathers on birth certificates, as if it also was true.

No mention of the mothers who don't know who they slept with, have no idea of which of the large group did the deed, or to put it crudely, decided to screw for a living.

A very large number of single mothers, in lower income groups have simply decided they would rather live on the single mothers pension, rather tham work for a living. This is fact.

Then no mention of the quite large number of men, supporting some other blokes kid, with this fact well known to the mother. You can't take the moral high ground here, with this biased junk.

Then we have Master jump in with a post simply attacking anothers point of view. Sorry girls, you will get much further with reasoned argument, than this rubbish. I can see plenty of falt with many fathers, but getting my back up, & the backs of any reasonable person, with this twaddle, is not the way to win support for your position.

So Hasbeen in 7 paragraphs, could not bring himself to say even ONE positive word about the female of the species. Not one word. But he has a LOT to say about mothers who he says "screw for a living". And ya gotta love his phrase "Come on now love, even ladies can't get away with that stuff". Then he goes on to present women in a negative way, and males as poor victims. He's taken the high moral ground with his biased junk.

Obviously Hasbeen is an old dinosaur from a past era, still stuck in the time warp. But he's probably younger than me, just about everyone else here is younger than me. But even I, at 81 years of age, have enough sense to NOT be bitter about, and condescending towards, women - - - - - unlike the attitude displayed by the language of the old dinosaur Hasbeen.