Thanks for your considered response R0bert. I guess I was thinking more about the country than the city. Often these days with better mobility, people marry from long distances. I'll use my family as an example - for husband and wife to come from more than 300km apart is not unusual. Out in the country things can still be pretty traditional too, with families often living in the home town of the husband. On seperation it is entirely understandable for wife to want to move somewhere where she may have a bit more emotional and practical support from her own family rather than relying on in-laws (who may be less than helpful given the situation). I agree in general with your comments about sea-changing parents, particularly in a city context. Although I do note that whilst there may not be an increase in job opportunities, there are generally cheaper accommodation options, not to mention the lifestyle benefits that may be there for the kids. That said, any move should be looked at in context of interuption to the kids (whether the move be a career move, or one due to seperation), because its a pretty big deal to them.

People Against Live
"Parhaps the Government could fifty fifty fund the fathers to travel four times a year to visit their children SO LONG AS THEY ARE PAYING towards keeping their kids as so many dont"

Nice bit of sexism there PAL - assuming non-residential parent is the father - how would you feel about seeing your kids 4 times a year? Provisional of course on your continuing to provide the father with an income stream which he can spend however he damn well pleases.

Country Gal, and I'm thinking more in terms of the city than the country. To long since I've lived in the country and we were not remote - 1/2 hour out of town and when I was a kid divorces were few and far between.

There are probably a host of other situations where shared care would not be workable, I do think that it's a far better default position than single parent maternal care (which is pretty much what we have had for some time). Adjust when it can't work or when one parent either does not want care or is proven to be incapable of providing it.

We need safeguards in place to protect kids and parents against genuinely abusive parents (whatever their gender), we need to try and allow people to move on with their lives but we need ensure that the consequences of lifestyle decisions rest primarily with the person making the decision.

In regard to the situation you talk about with women generally moving to where their partner lives to marry do you think that the men are likely to have adequate support networks in place when their wife leaves and takes the kids? My impression is that a lot don't have much of a support base outside of their immediate family but I'm not close enough to it to have an informed opinion on that. Not being able to see kids on a regular basis compounds the isolation and pain.

Rob well picked up. Not a lot of mums would be pleased to have outsiders assume that seeing their kids 4 times a year on a short visit would be adequate involvement in their kids lives. It astounds me that so many seem keen to foist that kind of package on fathers (and the kids who only see their dad 4 times a year).

R0bert

I hope that you are not trying to push the "poor single mother" angle, because maybe there are some facts you really should consider as a balanced "devil's advocate"....

The payer (non-custodial parent) generally has to set up an entire household from scratch, AND is awarded less money in the divorce settlement to do so - so imagine what THEY have to tell their kids. In fact most payers are almost bankrupted by the constant battles in court, whilst trying to ensure that the children are allowed to spend time with each parent.

The payer's family will more than likely never see the children again, because the courts IGNORE them completely, as if they are seemingly no longer important.

If a payer re-marries, and has a family...THAT family is financially disadvantaged by the archaic and discriminatory court rulings (and CSA). Since when does your "previous marital status" mean that you are never allowed to be happy again? Ask any "subsequent spouse" about the blatant discrimination that they are subjected to.

I am glad that you are happy now, and that your sons give you joy. But please remember that there are many men and women out there who are still battling for the smallest amount of equality that every other person is automatically guaranteed.

R0bert, in the situation I suggest re woman moving to man's home town and subsequently finding little support, I would expect in most (and I do say just most) cases that the man does have his family there. Particularly while he is younger (I'm talking up to age 40 say) most would still have parents etc to provide some support. I am simply suggesting the in the country women may be more inclined to "move home" to access the same family support. This certainly isnt the case for everyone, but is reasonably common. I know with my own family (have 2 cousins married at home on the farm) the wives would move away (presumably with the kids) back to their home towns to get that sort of support from their own families. If I seperated from my husband (tempting at times!), I certainly would want to move significantly closer to my family and I'm 900km from home.

I do agree with you on that shared care should be the default scenario, then work from there if there are problems with it.

Robert.
Paying towards your kids is not a favour. Its a reasonsibilty. Its not up for backmail either.[ You do this OR I wont pay towards the kids costs]
I would do what ever I could to make my kids lives happy.
No woman marries a man and gives birth wanting the marriage and family to go down the tube Robert.
However things do change in peoples lives.
If the mother moves for support from her family or because she can not afford to stay where she was- Thats something you must except as part of the break up.
This is why its always important to seek counciling together for the kids sake.
As for four visits a year most times it suites the Dads who nearly always form a new relashonship much more quickly than mum does.

There are cheap buses and planes and trains if you want to visit your kids once a month- which makes twelve visits.
Its not so hard it just requires the Dads to put themselves out for their kids like most Mums do 24-7
It is most important kids see Mum and Dad.
It just requires the will.
Where there is the will- There is always the way and the means.
Try asking Mum for the kids every second school holiday and also where mums can afford it I have seen them pay for trips to see Dad.

Often however Dads moved on and the second little lady does not want her life being run around somebody elses kids.
This seems to be a bigger problem in most cases than Dad being able to jump a plane.
Good reason to try not to split up a family unless it really is the only option.