“The 30% figure is a very dramatic one, and is endlessly trotted out by the media. It is also publicised by two other groups - first, support groups for the fathers who are indeed not biologically related to one or more of their children, and second, the Paternity Laboratories who charge for the tests.”

Hey Fractelle, thank you for directing me to that, I had read the media version of years ago and it was stuck in my head which was something like 1/10 men raising a child they had thought was theirs, in Britian. Along with what I read was something about females when at a fertile phase sought out very masculine men but at home wanted a more sensitive type for the actual raising of the children.

Seemed perfectly reasonable to me.

Benk:“We could also look at the current child support arrangements. The current system is so unpopular that many women refuse to name the father (if they know) and many men use tactics like tax evasion or going onto welfare. If the demands made of men were less unreasonable, more men might accept them.”

You reckon? The current system does seem to encourage a lot of bitterness.

I like Mogs idea about everyone paying. However they were created, once here, we should all contribute.

A fourth question I would add to benck's is this:

How do we get society to stop pressuring women to take the primary responsibility for the bearing and rearing of children?

There is still an extremely entrenched belief that a woman who does not take primary responsibility for her children, both during and after marriage, is not just a bad mother, but is a downright evil person. This is the main issue at the heart of the matter and it's the very issue that father's rights groups prefer to ignore, in favour of portraying women as using the kids as a weapon post-divorce - when 9 times out of 10, the woman is simply fulfilling the primary caretaker role that society has conditioned her to play.

If father's rights groups wish to be taken seriously, especially by women, then they need to face up to their own double standards. All the fatherly love in the world has not increased the incidence of men putting their hand up to compromise their careers, financial independence and long-term employability by staying home with their kids - unless the outcome of a divorce compels them to.

All
Benk may be right but sadly in our self centred world societal responsibility is discouraged.

As I've said generalisations (stats) may be useful in forming policy directions but like all averages "one side suits nobody' approach tends to create more unintended victims (anomalies).
I find it intensely frustrating having worked on the crisis intervention coal face to read debate(?) that argues over (universal) culprits..

Like Hasbeen I've seen more than my share of 'professional teenage mums' who play the system and prey on the naivety of some males. Me included.

Embodied in that is a genuine doubt that this attitude is hardly conducive to good parenting. The child is immaturely seen as a means to an end(pension) . But they are hardly the majority.

Likewise there are irresponsible and predatory males who see have no sense of responsibility (it's the girls look out). But again they too are a minority.

The figures in the question do not allow for deliberate pregnancies by women who want babies but not the male price tag. Gays and some 'power' women come to mind (e.g. donated sperm etc.)

Data and experience *suggests* that most single pregnancies are "starry eyed" Whoopses of various durations and or simply poor choices. e.g. trap a hubby, extend/cement a relationship or diverging imperatives ( young woman was living with her boyfriend wanted a baby ...he didn't they separated after which she discovered she was pregnant...the baby was born without a reg father because the mum no longer wanted or to force his involvement.)

Other factors like environment, ignorance, opportunities availability and social conditioning all play large in the genesis of the problem.
Clearly there is no one solution but a complex mix.

I can see better opportunities, education, tighter criteria of stay at home pensions more other options i.e. pensions come with mandatory parenting courses, training for jobs, govt child care forcing single mums to work . Mandatory they naming the father. Refundable paternal tests and garnishing of wages and benefits, forcing the males to advance skills etc. Tighter supervision.

Well the responses so far have been pretty predictable -deadbeat fathers vs deadbeat mothers without really getting to the crux of the problem.

One issue that has not been raised is the high divorce rate. Why do so many modern marriages end in divorce? Perhaps it is too easy to get married or people get married for the wrong reasons.

What ever happened to adults choosing to stay together for the kids surely it can't be any worse than what we have now (excepting the obvious for domestic violence situations).

Surely if two people loved each other once they can work it out and we can stop using children as pawns in what is really an adult problem.

I am not sure about the idea of tax revenue being used to support children of single parents over a long period, but I can see that it might be something worth throwing into the discussion - if it were to fly perhaps it could be like HECS and both parents can pay back a sum through their taxes when the kids turn 18 or become fully independent.

It is food for thought but seems an easy way out for people not taking personal responsibility. At least the kids will benefit from having one parent at home during the most important development years (probably not PC to say that anymore).

Examinator, you ask how so you were a tad ambiguous?

"ChasP and others."

Now I am sure who the "others" maybe, I think, perhaps. But the "others" I am thinking of aren't noted for their self-reflection. You stated that Chazp's argument lacked foundation, so many arguments on offer here lack a shred of reason I wonder just how you managed to single out Chazp.

Anyway it was fun scrolling through this thread because I found a post of A-septic's I actually agreed with - must've entered some kind of alternative universe. Here 'tis:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2968&page=0#68373

Please don't anyone tell A-septic I thought this an excellent post, he needs to maintain a particular mind-set about me or his world will fall apart.

As for myself, if I had been so stupid as to have had children with my ex-husband - I wouldn't have demanded a cent, I would've been too busy moving states, or countries, go anywhere to get away from him.

So maybe the missing fathers aren't all being evasive but being evaded.

Benk, your post has accidently highlighted a large area of the problem, when you suggest there were pressures for the man to do "the right thing by the mother".

Now assuming the sex was consensual, I can't see how the man has any more responsubility to woman, than she does to him. Neither have offered to support the other for life.

If a child has been the result, then both should have the same responsibility to that child. Now enter the Family Court, with the same idea, that he owes her, rather than the child, & no thought that she owes the child.

She is given the right to chose to have/not have the child, & then to keep or not keep the child. He is given no right, just the responsibility to pay for her choice.

Most men's income will not support the three of them, if they live together, in one household. It is rather stupid when that family court says he must now keep all three of them, in two seperate households.

The fact that this is impossible does not stop the same family court odering it.

Although in a family situation, she would hane had to help contribute financially, she is now no longer expected to do so.

Just listen to the complaints of the second wives about the unfairness of this system.

Some men, when faced with this judical injustice, decide to dig their feet in. If they are going to live in poverty, "because of her demands", true or not, they might as well do it somewhere nice, on the dole, rather than work their guts out for it. The feeling of injustice outweighs their feelings of responsibility.

Sorry girls, I can see no reason why I should contribute more to raising your kids, than I do with medical, & education now.

I do not see how we can get a fair, & reasonable outcome for most broken families, so how about those who can't come up with a suitable funding arrangement for their kids, should have to surrender them for adoption?