Antiseptic, agreed however I think the make fathers pay sentiment goes way beyond the practical aspects for some. I've seen enough genuine cases where fathers have not been willing to take their parenting responsibilities seriously (both time and money) to know that it's not all spin by the mothers lobby, likewise I've seen enough mums using the system to avoid paid employment (and where the kids are not getting better care than those of working mums) to see the other side of that as well. I understand why those who do the right thing don't want to pay even more to support the children of those who don't. For a solution to work it's got to be politically viable and I suspect that at this stage I don't think that enough people have really thought about the harm done by keeping seperated parents in ongoing conflict.

Making "deadbeat dads" pay is still more important than the harm done to kids by the ongoing conflict with both parents feeling ripped off by the other.

There are no easy answers despite how appealing some things might seem to one side or the other.

One compromise solution I've suggested in the past is to break the direct linkage between payer and payee where there are issues. Payers pay into a pool, payee's are paid out of the pool and minimise the impact on the other parent of choices beyond their control. The choices the other parent makes should not impact on child support obligations or benefits. That could reduce the triggers for ongoing conflict between parents, not perfect but it might be a step forward on the money issue.

R0bert

ChasP and others.

What is it that people don't understand about statistics and News papers?

STATISTICS ARE GENERALISATIONS. Raw numbers open to various alternatives. Their value depends on how they were collected.

NEWS PAPERS SELL ADVERTISING exactly like TV...do you believe “reality TV” is in any real sense a reflection of reality?

Believe either literally at your peril.

When one registers a birth Hatches, Matches, Despatches does exactly that. No reasons are asked or given. Common sense tells you that at the point of birth registration and without further information NO ONE can determine the quality of parental care/circumstances that child may or may not experience in the future.

The only substantiated fact is that 30k children were born without Father being nominated. The only conclusion one might sensibly make is to compare the numbers with that of an equal time period before then maybe one could conclude the number is on the rise....ergo the Base family unit is changing from the 50's mum dad and two children model. Anything else is pure unsubstantiatable pointless speculation/ prejudice baiting.
The conclusions McKay draws are as meaningful as me having a system for Lotto.
He is simply gathering readers for the ads. In advertising terms he is puffing the figures...

If one was to try and correlate the numbers with DOCS A totally different set of numbers would show up.

Contrary to blatant prejudice of some the actual relative numbers of teenage girls who deliberately get pregnant to avoid work is comparatively small. Especially when compared to starry eyed pregnancies and or whoopses. Advocates of blatant pregnancy view would find actual FACTS contradict their assertions .

Meanwhile those who are trying to understand the changes in our society are being lost by the fog.

mog: 'The determined wealthy child support avoiders are also usually tax avoiders - use the force of the Commonwealth to pursue tax evasion.'

Excellent perspective - and one that is rarely, if ever, brought up in these discussions. ALL the men I know who get out of paying child support are well off - no exceptions. Another common factor is that they are, without exception, self-employed businessmen or professional men, who are fully conversant with unethical accounting flexibilities that minimise their 'official' earnings - and this also ties in with your observations about tax evasion.

It's the low- to middle-income wage-earning man who is footing the bill for other men to evade the child support system. But, of course, you won't hear this from father's rights advocates, for whom it's standard practice to always blame the woman.

SJF's statement:

<< It's the low- to middle-income wage-earning man (and woman - apologies SJF) who is footing the bill for other men to evade the child support system. But, of course, you won't hear this from father's rights advocates, for whom it's standard practice to always blame the woman. >>

True. And bears repeating.

And this from R0bert, which I found very concerning:

<< Making "deadbeat dads" pay is still more important than the harm done to kids by the ongoing conflict with both parents feeling ripped off by the other. >>

I disagree. There are times in one's life where it is necessary to cut one's losses and move on. The case of the well being of children, I would posit being one of them. The conflict between warring parents requires mediation NOT the current adversarial system that we have at present. The adversarial system suits those who have an axe to grind, the losers are the children and the parent who is trying to care for them.

Chazp and other women who dare to speak up on the rights of children have not, to my knowledge on reading her posts on OLO, ever condemned ALL MEN - just those whose agenda is the constant disparagement of women. Any women. Any of us to dare to voice our opinions. No matter how often I point out the adoration I have for the men who have stood by me and have supported me though-out my life, if I dare to criticise a single male such as Formersnag, Antiseptic or Roscop I am subjected to abuse - apparently with the approval of the OLO editor-in-chief.

For example,

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9238&page=0#147350

Examinator

While I agree with much you have written in your post, I do not understand why you singled out Chazp... "and others" seems a little weak and very ambiguous. Please clarify.

Thank you

Fractelle the current approach to child support makes it very difficult for those with a less than ethical ex to cut their losses and move on. Custodial parents get less if their ex manages to avoid paying child support for some reason, non-cusodial parents pay more if the custodial parent cuts back on their income. The tie's between Centerlink payments and CSA assessments mean that many who might otherwise work it out for themselves get drawn into CSA's web.

Residency arrangements get impacted by CSA care brackets, I'm not current on that but it certainly used to be an issue.

CSA maintains adversarial situations because the choices of one parent have such a direct impact on the other parent.

ChazP has certainly made some broad attacks on all of the fathers support groups and on fathers generally. I was told " you seem to be one of that very rare breed - fathers who really care for their kids" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9151#145730 - nice for me personally but as a father who has seen the sacrifices other fathers make for their families grossly insulting. In the same post from ChazP we had "and who form groups such as Father4Tyranny and Fathers4Domination".

R0bert

deadly analysis ChazP,

"these Dinosaurs and Neanderthals are merely the guard dogs of heavily defended male power in this Patriarchal Society with its male-dominated political system, organised religions, the media, the legal system, commerce, and industry. This feudal system treats women and children as serfs."

patriachy is most effectively removed and child support equitably achieved in perpetuity with an equal rights Republic in which decision making is conducted by agreement between women's and a men's legislatures presided over by elders accompanied by courts of women's and men's jurisdiction.

moreover, rather than wait until Queen Elizabeth II dies to proclaim a republic as some Australians have suggested, why not honour her reign while she is still alive with the declaration of an equal rights republic?

what better way to honour Her Majesty's legacy than to pass her sovereignty onto governance accommodating the first women's legislature of the modern era.