Robert, I think it’s great when a dad is the main caregiver for his children. Kudos to you for being there for him! It’s too bad he had to go through a custody fight and hearing his mom bad-mouth you. That is such a devastating thing for a child to go through. I’m glad he is back on track.
Yes, I did see Forrest’s post .. I felt a bit weird by it, not sure if he was criticizing me or complimenting me for getting my topic posted

V.Amberlee, I read Forrest's mention of you as an acknowlegment of you and his short term hijack of the thread. I doubt that there is anything sinister in it.

I'd rather do shared care than prime. That's not about the workload involved, I've got it a lot easier than people I know with multiple kids and low income jobs. It's about a preference for my son to learn from both his parents.

R0bert

V Amberlee
Sadly people cant live their lives trying to play happy little familys with somebodies X.
I think if another person is assisting with the care of your kids then despite everything the Mum needs to set a good example and act accordingly not just foir her kids but because she ought to be grateful of the time given her kids.

There is far far too little respect and consideration given the secod wife and partner who often carry a heavier load than the x because they have their own on top.

Robert You say you think time should be shared between both Mum and Dad - Then say you have your child twelve to thirteen nights out of fourteen.
Does that sound to you like half and half.
Sounds more like a person who controls both the child and the x to be honest.
I suppose you insist! on family outings together as well.'

Then you say if a couple are re married and they have to move away for work or what ever reason they should rip! the kids from the x marraiges away from their Mothers? You go on to say it should be made law?
I think you have some serious control issues to be honest.
Thats beyond the pale.

PALE, I was going to write a terse response to your post but I might wait for bit and see if anybody else cares to point out your errors. Might be more fun that way.

In the mean time to entertain yourself you could try reading what I've actually said and comparing it to your claims. You may find it entertaining.

R0bert

Robert
What you said was you want a law introduced to make people give up custody of their children if they move away. Or at least visits.
How can that help a child.?
Oh- I forgot only if they have either had little contact or visits with their kids- or the other way around.
The other way around you are saying this.
If a person has made a point of seeing his children or her children on a regular basis and the other party who has the main care of the kids wishes to move- "You want a law passed to stop them from being able to move." - Or to choose between going and not seeing their kids.
That is not fair. You claim if you can show the court you have always made an effort to visit the children then you should be able to force the main carer[ often mum to hand the children over]' Rather than be able to move on with her second husband]

You even come up with an interesting counter offer suggestion.
Which was- If the parent can show the court the other party- eg be it the father does not see his kids on a regular basis he should be relieved from any child support?

What I am trying to point out to you both is other parties normally have other spouses and other children with other demands.
Now in case I have read you wrong please explain why on earth you would expect other people with other children not to have issues with their own lives.

In order to carry out your new law Rovert- each State of Australia would have to have a suburb just for the x and their children so they could all live happily ever after.
The bottom line is you can NOT introduce a law to dicate where people live by holding a gun to their heads that they wont ever see their children from their first marriage again if they move.

Even if! the parent may not slot into your army Robert.

PALE, so choosing to move and taking the kids away from a parent who has been involved in their lives is in your view "fair" whereas choosing to move and not being able to pass the negative consequences to the other parent is not "fair".

My suggestion re child support was about situations where the earlier approach did not work. For some reason the parent who was not moving was unable to take on full care of the kids (after being cleaned out during the property settlement they may not have a home where kids can be accomodated, debts may preclude them taking on a job which provided the flexibility to do full time care etc) they should be freed from their obligations if the other party chooses to move away and stop their active involement in childrens lives.

What I proposes places the consequences as far as possible back with the person making the choices, the person most likely to gain from the move.

You seem outraged that this may in practice place limitations on choices mothers make. Are you as equally outraged that current laws can be used to effectively force C$A payers to stay in high stress or dangerous jobs to contine to provide financially based on capacity to earn? Are you outraged that C$A payers who wish to change jobs to adjust to their changed circumstances and spend more time with kids based on new living arrangements can be stopped from doing so by C$A's "capacity to earn"?

I noticed that you have not addressed your earlier nasty allegations re Control. It will be interesting to see if you get around to doing so.

R0bert