Australia: Shared parenting laws on way out

When I read the comments, what really struck me was the vitriol coming from most of the women. Don't tell that they're all feminists. This is the self-righteousness that comes from escaping criticism for over 4 decades. At least one male-friendly, fair-minded female writer expressed shame for the attitudes of her gender. I can understand it.

I want shared parenting to work, I really do. I have always been pro-father and I think in many cases men should be granted full custody. But now that I have experience custody issues first hand, my attitude has changed in regards to shared parenting. I think fatherhood is just as important, but it is the practicality and welfare of the kids that I think is more of an issue than outsiders can understand.

If mothers and fathers were honest and had good intentions (not motivated by money), I think shared custody could work, but even then circumstances would have to be perfectly lined up which would be very rare. For example, how many separated parents live in close enough proximity to each other that they could both easily get a child to and from school and to the kids' activities as most kids take sports or have lessons of some type? Not many, and close proximity to each other would be key. If kids are going to be 50/50 at each house can you imagine parents fighting over which school to send the kids to (the one closest to mom's house or the one closest to dad's house?)

Also each household would have to have similar rules and punishments, otherwise it could get very confusing for children and as they get older they would want to be at the less strict household, which may not be best for them and may alienate the stricter parent. With teenagers, what if one parent had a 1 AM curfew and the other parent had no curfew?

What if one parent wanted the child to take martial arts lessons, but the other parent wanted the child to join a basketball team? (an example from my own experience).

I had a girl in my dance class that had a shared parenting situation. She was every-other week with dad. Dad did not want her in dance and therefore did not bring her to dance class on 'his time'. The mom had to pay full price for the lessons (I had no say in the matter, as I was an employee of the studio). The girl got very little out of it since she only attended 50%. The parents could never agree as to what sport or activity the child was going to do as the schedule always seemed to interfere with one of the parents.

I think a stable home is very important to kids. Because some parents argue about every little thing I can see why the courts would have to grant one parent as the primary decision maker. But I think fathers should have an equal chance to be that person.

Here is one case of shared parenting that I know of and why it is important to consider circumstances when determining child support....

My neighbor's son owned a house before marriage. He married a highly career minded women who had a good job and worked her way up. He started his own business and made less than his wife. As she was pregnant with their second child, she begged him to move back to her home town several states away so her parents could be near their only grandchildren and help with babysitting. He sold their house (that he owned before marriage) and sold his business to accommodate her request. When they moved she was able to get transferred within her corporation. He had to start all over again.

So here they are in her home town and she runs into her high school sweet-heart who she would rather be with and files for divorce from her husband just a few months after giving birth and this big move across the country that she initiated. Luckily he received shared custody and she has to pay him child support.

If circumstances were not considered, he would have shared custody but no child support from his ex-wife who initiated the break up after he made all the sacrifices! I think fault, agreements and intent need to be considerred in all custody issues.

The bad part is that he is stuck living away from his family (and the children's paternal grandparents) if he were to move back he would lose his shared custody. IMO, I think in this case the father should have received full custody.

Anyway, I know good and bad examples of shared parenting. The good is really good, but the bad is really bad.

Indeed, war has been declared on the men and fathers of Australia by this blatant discriminatory and misandric rollback legislation.

That being said, it will be interesting to see just what the men will do about this. Will they fight back? After all they do have the vote and some political leverage and the cause is a basic civil right. Or will they just giggle about it and pop another cold beer and watch ballgames on the tv? (My bet is that they will do NOTHING!)

Kris, Most of the parenting dilemas you cite exist in two-parent homes as well. This stuff happens in my house all the time. You're just not going to fix this age-old "problem".

"IMO, I think in this case the father should have received full custody." Why Kris? I don't get why Mom should lose her parenting rights here. Could you explain? Is this simply a post-marital punishment for her?

BTW I have not read the original legislation so I couldn't possibly comment on whether it was a good or bad idea. But seeing how all the diessenting groups are man-hating I know which way I'm leaning already. If someone could quickly summarize what the legislation did that would be helpful.

"it is the practicality and welfare of the kids that I think is more of an issue than outsiders can understand. "

'Best interests of the child' is the classic claim of feminist and women's groups, whereas in reality they have no such thing in mind, but instead the best interests of the mother trumps all else. (See Baskerville's "Taken Into Custody").

Also, I agree with champ1.

-ax

Notice how the article cites a few examples of cases where the father was 'dangerous' or something and still got custody, or the case where the father threw his baby off a bridge. Note how they do not cite the cases of mothers exhibiting similar behaviour, or the many cases of fathers who have committed suicide after losing access to their children.

Basing laws on particular incidents is in general a bad practice, and also in this case is designed to appeal to the emotions - thus drawing women to support it.

In the U.S., Health and Human Services department statistics clearly indicate that mother alone is the most dangerous environment for a child. There is even evidence that father alone is better than mother alone for raising a child in general. I don't see why either of these would be any different in Australia.

-ax

Champ,

It is my quickly formed opinion, based on that I believe the wife initiated the move that placed the family in a location that was most beneficial to her (across the country to be close to her parents and friends) and then she immediately caused the break up by filing for divorce and marrying her high school sweetheart.

I think the father deserves some restitution, including the option of moving the kids back to the state they came from (where he is from and was an established businessman. This is also where they started, where they met and married and the children were born) I do not believe the mother should be forced to give up shared parenting, but I believe that she should face some tough choices. including letting the father choose to move back to his community and she will either have to follow him to continue shared parenting or give up her rights.

Basically she caused the move that put the father at a disadvantage, she caused the break up of the marriage, so I think she needs to face more hardships in the aftermath.

In reality, I don't think this could ever happen because divorce courts can't dictate what happens in other states (so basically he is stuck living where she tricked him into moving), but if it could happen, I think it would be more fair to the father.

Where do you think I erred in my logic?

"That [practicality and best interest of the kids] is the classic claim of feminist and women's groups"

Ax, that may be so, but why should it not be considered? If it is not best interest of the kid, then who's best interest should it be?

If you noticed I specifically mention that I often believe the father is the better parent, so if is the best interest of the child to be with their father, then that is where I would place them IF shared parenting is not an option or could not work out between the two parents.

Don't get me wrong, I think shared custody should always be considered and it is great when both parents are willing to make it work But IMO it is impractical in most situations mostly due to location and work schedules. And if parents cannot even agree what school to send a child to, what activities the child will participate in, curfew rules, dating rules, punishments, rewards, etc. I do not think that either parent would have any control and parenting would be ineffective.

Do you support shared parenting no matter what the situation, or how far apart they live, or do you think at times it may be impractical?

I guess I should count my blessings that my children's biological father has never requested shared physical custody (he is a 7 hr plane ride away). He does not even ask for his 2 weeks at summer.

PS- even though I sometimes make general statements about who should get custody, I ALWAYS believe that fault and intent should be considerred.

ax makes a critical point here. Feminism is about what's best for women, not what's best for children. I think even the feminists would admit that. When the feminists are attacking this Australian law they're doing it because they've lost a critical lever in negotiations with men over post-marital assets and income. When men and women are on a level playing field mom can't extort more $ out of Dad. This isn't any more complicated than that. And what's their tactic? They're using the same smear and fear tactics whites used against blacks in the south and men used against women 100 years ago. The status quo is being pushed to surrender their special treatment so what gets trotted out? A story about some guy tossing his kid off a bridge. BECAUSE YOU KNOW ALL MEN ARE CAPABLE OF THAT, RIGHT? Really, the ends justify the means for the feminists.

"If it is not best interest of the kid, then who's best interest should it be? "

Of course it should be in the best interestst of the child, I didn't say it shouldn't. And in almost all cases, shared custody is what is in the child's best interests. It should not be an issue of 'which parent is better' unless violence or outright abuse are involved. The things you are talking about have a lot to do with preference, and also it sounds like you have been at least partially brainwashed by the feminist-controlled dialogue on the issue.

You are never going to find two parents who are 'equally perfect' for a child.
A child needs both parents, a mother and a father, even if there is a problem between them. And, a father is not simply a 'role model' who can be replaced by others such as a male teacher or etc., or a grandfather or other male relative. Saying that a father functions mainly as a role model is equivalent to saying the same about the mother.

-ax

Kris, I totally oppose most aspects of marriage but I have to say punitive damages for "causing" a divorce has to be my least favorite idea of all. If someone doesn't want to be in a partnership they should NOT be forced or coerced into it in any way. Barriers to divorce such as (what I call) child abduction laws and onnerous alimony, QDROs, child/spousal support, etc. are without a doubt the leading cause of family disfunction. You may not be able to imagine the resentment one feels when they're a slave to a relationship. If your idea was truly in place rather than divorce her husband the wife would have simply saw her high school sweetheart on the side and this would have led to a disfuntional home anyway. A home that could easily be worse than under the current situation.

Ax,

I think we probably agree more than you think on this issue, perhaps we are both reading more into the other's statements than is intended and misunderstanding each other.

But even if we disagree, I respect your opinion, but I do not appreciate being referred to as 'brainwashed' by 'feminist'. I have come to my opinion on this subject based on personal experience.

Ax: "Saying that a father functions mainly as a role model is equivalent to saying the same about the mother."

I have NEVER said anything like this, so I am not sure why you are mentioning it.

I have always believed that fathers are important and that shared custody should be a priority. It should be the first option considered. If you read my comments, it was always implied.

I think where you and I probably part ways is how often I believe 50/50 custody could really work. Not so much because parents are unwilling, but because of locations and work schedules. Have you ever tried to get a nanny or daycare/after school care just for 'every-other week'? It is not an option. How about a son on a high school football team but telling the coach he can only come every other week?

And then there is the percentage of parents that will never get along and sabotage the other at every chance. I don't believe this could ever be good for a child, and I could understand if the courts stepped in and gave one parent the final say. You may disagree, but we will have to "agree to disagree" as they say.

And my last paragraph about my kid's biological father. I have always wanted him involved and feel that my kids need him. But I was trying to show how impractical it would be. There are many parents like me that live thousands of miles away, so shared parenting is not an option, not by choice but by practicality.

Goodnight.

Champ,

You and I obviously disagree on this (not so much on shared parenting, but other aspects of divorce and custody) as we come from two different situations. You are miserably married and it appears that you and your wife can't agree on anything; and I am happily separated from my children's father and we agreed on everything along the way. (Except for martial arts vs. basketball)

The one thing that puzzles me about your opinion is that in cases of divorce and splitting money or assets and parenting, it is not always possible to make things exactly equal. In almost every situation there is going to be one person that will have to have a little more hardship or sacrifices, don't you agree? It may be that one parent has to move out or one parent has to change their work schedule, or one parent has to pay for after school care because they can't make the pick up time, or one parent may have to drive further (you get the idea).

So if hardships or sacrifices are unavoidable do you feel that 'fault of the break up" should be considered in determining who should have the most hardship or sacrifices in the aftermath?

If not, then how would you determine who makes the hardship?

And just so you know, I was never married to my children's father so my process was very easy, I have never had to deal with this sort of stuff.

One more thing....

I also think many people plan for a divorce and/or trick the other partner. In my example about the husband and wife. I believe the wife may have been seeing her high school sweetheart (maybe corresponding) while she was married and that is why she pressed for the move. The husband gave up a lot for the move. He sold his house and business.

So if a spouse has you make a life-changing choice (i.e. moving) based on false premises, you do not think that should be considered or any restitution owed?

are attempting to convert the system to the 'child-rights' based system (I don't have a problem with children's rights just the way this in particular is implemented) which judging from the way father's rights activists are trying to change this system, short changes them.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,26259132-5013404,00.html

Shared Parenting Council Article

"but because of locations and work schedules" That should not generally be a reason for a judge to deny one parent access to a child. See? Both parents having access to the child is what is of most importance - to the child. You are still talking about options/preferences, or happenstances. You are talking about who is the 'better person available.' Obviously if both parents agree on an arrangement then they have made a decision, but they still may be short-changing the child. It's when the courts and the state interfere that we have the injustices (mainly against fathers).

I think one possible source of confusion here is that you do not realize the issue is court-decided custody in a battle between parents, not amicable agreements between parents.

I think we're all a little brainswashed by feminism, myself included no doubt. As far as the other thing you quoted me on, I didn't mean that you said it. I am referring to others who have.
-ax

I received my Fathers and Families newsletter today. It talks about how the [Maria] Shriver report ("A Woman's Nation") does a hatchet job on fathers and the family court reform movement. The newsletter article (by Glenn Sacks) includes the following:

'While many women's advocates have taken a misguided stand against shared parenting, there is a significant, outspoken minority which recognizes its benefits for women. For example, feminist attorney Karen DeCrow, president of the National Organization for Women from 1974 to 1977, says:

"If there is a divorce in the family, I urge a presumption of joint custody of the children…it is the best option for women. After observing women's rights and responsibilities for more than a quarter of a century of feminist activism, I conclude that shared parenting is great for women, giving time and opportunity for female parents to pursue education, training, jobs, careers, profession and leisure."

Martha Burk, the Chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations who led the effort to open the Augusta National Golf Club to women, concurs. Burk, who was named Ms. Magazine Woman of the Year in 2003, explains that shared parenting provides women with greater economic freedoms and opportunities. She calls the current child custody system "mother ownership of children" and says that under this "harmful societal norm" judges "mindlessly award [sole] custody to the mother," to the detriment of all parties.'

All this shows where even these 'friendly' feminists are coming from - woman first. Also, these type statements by them play into the self-serving attitude that most women have.

As an aside, Glenn is somewhat of a chivalrist, so it's not that surprising that he'd (misguidedly) use this stuff to support F&F's position.

-ax

Kris,

"...don't you agree?" Yes, I do.

"So if hardships or sacrifices are unavoidable do you feel that 'fault of the break up" should be considered in determining who should have the most hardship or sacrifices in the aftermath?" I just don't think a marital break-up should be punitive to one side. Reconnecting and wanting to be with your high school sweetheart is not the "fault" of anyone. It's a basic human desire to be with someone you love and care about.

We pretty much have no-fault divorce now across the country which I believe is a good thing. HOWEVER, due to the very nature of civil marriage, which is really a welfare system, those who work are put at an extreme disadvantage. Despite our relative contributions to our partnership my wife could divorce me today and I would be left with virtually nothing, including my daughter, and have to pay her a lifetime pension to boot - just because she chose not to work. This is slavery. But the answer is NOT to penalize someone like her for ending a marriage. The real answer is to end community property (aka communism), alimony, QDROs, etc. in marriage and divorce. In other words to say goodbye to the incentive for golddiggers and moochers.

As for shared parenting the presumption should be for shared custody. Even parents who live some distance from each other can make it work by splitting up time during, for example, the school year and summer.

I know this thread is getting a little tiresome, I will understand if I get no response. It is also evident that we will not change each other's minds, so I will respectfully disagree on some of the specific issues.

Ax, I understand more what you are saying. I think I have been referring to physical custody (who's roof the child is under) and you are referring to the whole aspect of parenting (communication, decision making, influence, etc). If a parent cannot have physical custody on Monday nights due to work or location, it should not prevent him or her from parenting the child on Monday nights. I think that is what you are saying, if so, I agree.

On the Parenting Plan form it does accommodate this within reason. Generally a parent cannot control what goes on in the other parents house. But Parenting Plans are broken down into categories. There is physical custody, education, health and medical, religion, etc. and you can customize it to some extent. You write down what the agreement is for each category (at least in my state that's how it's done).

So it is very possible for a parent to not have physical custody at certain times, but to stipulate access by phone, text or whatever and have equal decision making rights.

For example in my parenting plan I have full physical custody and full day to day decisions. But their father has shared religious upbringing and shared educational decisions. He has full access to their education and medical records. He also requested that the kids be available to attend his family functions such as funerals, weddings and reunions.

Each state is probably a little different, and I may be a little naive as to how it works when couples disagree, as I have never experienced that. (My ex and I never enterred a courtroom)

I think 50/50 physical custody should always be done when it will benefit the child (and I have seen it work very well) , but I only believe it is beneficial when the households are in close proximity and similar (same rules, lifestyle, etc). If households are NOT in close proximity or similar, I think it would be a disaster. I know I will not change your minds, but here are some thoughts that have formed my perspective:

(1) I am adopted. I was raised my neither my biological mother or father. I agree that parents should not be willy-nilly substituted by a stand in, but a person does not have to be biological to parent a child. Do you have any adopted people in your family or friends? Ask them how they would feel if their biological parents showed up on their doorstep and wanted to take them away for the summer.

When people ask me if I know my real father, I say "yes" he is the one that loved me, spanked me, taught me to ride a bike, set boundaries and is the one I call when I'm in a jam. It is because I have such a good father, that I value fathers so much. I can't imagine a child being raised without one. But there is nothing 'biological' about us. I am quite sure I am better off adopted then being raised by biological parents.

Adoption may be a little off topic, but you can certainly see how I form my perspective about 'biological' relationships not always being in the child's best interest especially when it involves a drastic change in the child's familiar family settings (as in a biological parent suddenly entering a child's life and/or moving the child to a distant location, even if temporary)

(2) My kids biological father has 4 kids with 3 different women (he does not live with any of them) how would he orchestrate shared physical custody. It is very common for step families to form when parents separate, which adds another dimension.

(3) Kids get very social at age 13 and their friends become more important than their parents (in the eyes of the child) if parents live so far apart that it isolates a child from their friends and familiar activities, I would think they would grow resentful of having to go to that parent's house. So perhaps as a child gets older a parent may consider relaxing a bit on the physical custody, but still be an active parent by looking after the child (via phone, texting, checking up on the child and setting rules, etc)

(4) Have you considered how sports and activities would work? Sports and activities are important to kids. If parents do not live in close proximity I doubt any sport or activity will correspond with the parents schedule. And these activities are expensive. It would not make sense to pay for something if a kid could not complete it. If a child was every other week at a parents house that lived so far that commuting to activities was not an option (or the parent was uncooperative ), I cannot think of A SINGLE ACTIVITY that a child could participate in. Other than school clubs in high school most activities/sports do not start and stop with the school schedule.

(5) I think the impact would be different for different age groups: babies to 5, school aged kids, and teenagers. I also think it makes a difference if we are talking about the arrangement since birth or sudden split when kids are older.

Kris,

I know this goes against the grain but I'm not a proponent of always citing the best interests of the child. This whole idea is VERY subjective and IMO a very slippery slope. Who decides? If there is truly a dangerous situation in one home then by all means the courts should have the authority to get the child out of harm's way. Otherwise, the state should have NO right to deny parental rights. We don't need Big Brother around all the time. Parents should (I believe DO under the constitution) have a fundamental right to have custody of and parent their children. I think that's what this Australian law has done. No more denying parental rights to fathers just because you're a man. All the practical issues can and should be worked around if at all possible.

Champ,

I don't necessarily disagree with you.

I do not want to see parents go thru a rating system where if a parent is squeaky clean they get a '10' and the other parent smokes so they get an "8" Therefor kids go with the "10". I am sorry if I somehow gave that impression.

I think kids benefit from both parents. I think where my opinion differs is that I separate physical custody into one aspect of parenting. I think the opportunity for physical custody should be equal but only if it does not involve uprooting the kids to such an extreme that it causes hardships on the kids. The parent that does not have physical custody should still have equal parenting duties as far as communicating with the child, decision making, etc.

I completely understand how people can have different opinions on this issue. I think I have some unique situations that have formed my perspective:

Not only was I adopted, but my biological brother and I were removed form our birth mother's home and placed in foster care because she had too many kids and in and out of jail. My older siblings were not removed form her care, and they died in a house fire during the night while she was out turning tricks. My birth mother committed suicide soon afterwards and my brother and I were adopted into our family (I was only 3 so I have no recollection of this).

I am sure no one could have predicted this and I do not think we should remove kids because of what might happen. But I do have an appreciation for removing kids and the foster system that others may not have.

On the otherhand...

My children's biological father was raised in a terrible household. Ghetto poor and evicted from place to place. His dad was in and out of prison and when he wasn't in prison he was smoking crack and beatin' and cheatin'. His mom wasn't much better. Somehow, the survival skills he learned growing up in that environment paid off because he turned out to be a good successful person. He lists his mom as the person he admires most.

Then I live in an upper class suburban neighborhood. Most families are professional two-parent homes. My neighbor's teenaged son is a spoiled brat and has been in and out of re-hab for two years.

You just never know how kids are going to end up based on the parenting.

My husband's mom died when he was 15. He was a star baseball player in high school and he did not want to move to a different state to live with his dad who he hardly knew. He moved in with a classmate's family and his dad supported him financialy. I think this was a good decision and his dad and him have a close relationship now. I don't think forcing a 15 year old to move would have been wise.

"We pretty much have no-fault divorce now across the country which I believe is a good thing"

If one had to pick one single item which is most responsible for the break-up of families and the resultant social chaos it creates, it is no-fault divorce! It allows one partner (usually the mother) to make a unilateral decision to end the relationship, take out a restrainining order on the other person (usually the father) and/or make an accusation of child molestation or domestic violence, immediately and completely deny (the father) access to his children, deny him his place of residence, plunder his financial resources...No one person should ever have this much unilateral power over another, especially when it denies children of one parent!!

Please see 'Taken Into Custody' by Baskerville!

-ax

ax,

Sorry, but I just don't believe people should be forced to live in a marriage or any other relationship they don't want to be in. Who REALLY wants to be in a relationship like that? Isn't this America - land of the free? No-fault divorce has not and will not result in "social chaos". No-fault divorce is not the problem.

The problems are community property, child abduction laws, alimony, child support, QDROs, restraining orders, feminist run "family" court/welfare systems, domestic violence laws, etc. These are what give women so much power over men in marriage/divorce. These have all been designed and implemented to control men and provide welfare for women.

Civil marriage, which is nothing more than a welfare program, should be abolished and marriage should be given back to the churches and other religious institutions where it belongs. This is the main root of all the problems. Abolish civil marriage. Abolish slavery.

Who said anything about being forced to remain in a relationship? The point I'm trying to get across is that no person should have such unilateral power over anohter, not that we shouldn't allow divorce per se. It doesn't take too much effort by an intelligent person to imagine other, better ways to go about divorce than what we now have.

One of the biggest problem here is that so many judges are chivalrous douche-bags who can only see that 'children are always better off with the mother'.

-ax

"The point I'm trying to get across is that no person should have such unilateral power over anohter" I absolutely agree with that, but the answer is shared parenting and the elimination of community property, alimony, etc.

If we had "fault" divorce today I still couldn't get divorced. Even if she was sleeping with other guys so what. What could I do? If I divorce her I still lose my daughter, my life savings, and a huge chunk of my income. No thanks.