Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Top 10 RESEARCH Myths about Shared Parenting in Australia

….and Dad has accepted the EOW and 1/2 hols care regime because he is happy to work etc. etc..

Can I suggest the days are gone where parents held out for the kids before breaking up. Parents are breaking up a lot sooner now and there is little in the asset pool to give to anyone. Also less women are beign kept by their husbands. They are out working with them. Australian debt levels are at the highest. I have been working with children for last 17 years and have seen these changes occur within families. Given this sitation the 2006 FL changes were relevant and appropriate.

In saying that working mothers will still fight to have majority care as they have low income employment and need full FTB or part PPS to survive.

The problems with abuse are with mothers that have mental health issues or other problems and are surviving financially by having children but cannot keep a relationship together or find inappropriate partners. I really feel for the genuine men that get involved with these woman as they see their children as property and a source of income and are not willing to share the children with the father.

There are also fiananial issues with having new relationships as the mother will lose PPS if he is earning over the limit and the mothers FTB will then be reassesed to her new partner's income.

Effectively the Gov is saying to her when she declares the new relationship that she no longer has control over the FTB for her children and that she has to rely on new partner to keep her make financal decisons for her children. A lot of conflicts and breakups occur due to this situation.

This can be fixed by keeping eligibiligy for FTB tied to biological parents income regardless where parties are living.

I believe changing family assistance legislation so mothers don't lose financial control over their children when they enter a new relationship will encourage healthier long lasting relationships.

Therefore Gov policy is the main cause of abuse and family breakup in second families.

Sorry if I'm off topic but this is important and if you don't understand because I don't have time to check my writing etc… please ask more questions and will explain further later on.

Very grateful for the interest taken in this thread. I have always thought there is much to learn from each other's experiences. I think looking at these MYTHS is a good way to reassess the recent changes in Australian family law and also helps me in the UK.


1. Children are forced into equal time arrangements by Australia's Shared Parenting legislation

This MYTH is certainly true. In the UK we are forever told that shared parenting legislation is a 50 / 50 split. The message from this forum is that the law never said this or intended to say this. There was a rebuttable presumption. That is all.

2. The risk of Child abuse increases for a child in a Shared Parenting arrangement.

Overall what I have noticed is that feminist researchers, such as Dr McIntosh, fail to address the major issues in family law. When it comes to the business end of the research to show CAUSE AND EFFECT they just don't do it. They describe two separate features and then write a conclusion which cannot be substantiated by the evidence.

Any increase in abuse has nothing to do with the concept of shared parenting in principle but merely the fact that more time spent together unfortunately necessarily means there will be an increase. This increase does not justify shelving the principle.

3. The 2006 Shared Parenting laws have resulted in greater risks of family violence for mothers and children.

As above.

4. Shared Parenting reduces Child Support commitments, which is why many fathers seek Shared Parenting arrangements.

This, so far, is the most surprising. A common MYTH perpetuated in the media is that fathers use the threat of shared parenting to blackmail mothers in the way described by SAMBA. From what I can tell there is absolutely no evidence to support this storyline.

5. Children in Shared Parenting arrangements live a Ping-Pong lifestyle.

I AM REALLY INTERESTED IN HEARING THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS MYTH. Is there any hard research to show children suffer from a 'Ping Pong' lifestyle.

Once again many thanks for ALL the contributions.


Kingsley Miller is the author of 'even Toddlers Need Fathers', a critique of the principle of 'Maternal Deprivation' as applied in family courts, which Professor Sir Michael Rutter described as an, 'interesting and informative guide'. He has also received a letter from Buckingham Palace stating, 'It was thoughtful of you to enclose a copy of your book 'even Toddlers Need Fathers' and Her Majesty has noted your concerns'.
Well Kip you will have to explain what the actual suffering is caused by this so called "Ping Pong" lifestyle due to shared parenting.

We have friends that do week about and kids don't seem to have a problem. Both parents have moved on with new partners etc….and everyone is happy. I have a half weekly rotation running and this is working very well. All I can say is that we would find EOW very difficult to manage as the children wouldn't feel comfortable or ever settle into a normal family pace. I think "Ping Pong" care would be more like EOW.
I have a friend who had 50/50 then lost it to EOW which meant the loss of a supportive routine. My friend no longer has any real parental responsibility due to EOW and just makes the most of what little time is available with the children.

I think any shared parenting model where care is from 60/40 to 50/50 will provide a good routine for children and well establish them as part of two families.
So even though I am not sure what this "ping pong" lifestyle is all about, I experience shared parenting as providing a solid routine for children to be part of two families and think it works very well. It's a win win win situation for kids, parents and second families.

Last edit: by Fairgo

"Ping-pong" lifestyle is a fallacious argument.

1. It is based on a misrepresentation of the discredited Bowlby theory of security. However, it is not geographical security but emotional security that is important, namely, that the child is secure that he/she can be loved and give love to maintain its attachments with both fit parents.

2. Whether it is alternate weeks or EOW the number of changeovers, or pings, is the same.

Regards the myths
1. My interpretation of s61DAA, which determines parenting time, provided the presumption of shared parental responsibility is satisfied, that is, no family violence, is that the logic requires the judge to first consider and then reject equal time, then consider & substantial time, then EOW… until the maximum practical time with both parents in the best interests of the child is determined.

Gillard's sabotage of the shared parenting intent is done by making the evidentiary requirement for family violence so low - by fiddling with and expanding the definition - that the presumption will always be rebutted by any allegation. In this case s65DAA will never be triggered and any parenting will becomes purely discretionary - as it was before the 2006 amendments.

2. The risk of child abuse categorically decreases with shared parenting.

3. The independent AIFS study of 60,000 cases over 3 years found no evidence of any increase in family violence after the 2006 amendments.

The Gillard family violence amendments were purely political & profit motivated. Litigated divorce (profit) dropped 22%, the ridiculously contrived Chisholm report recommended repealing the presumption of innocence and protections from false allegations for "victims" to come forth - that is, to increase business. The ALP needs more divorce for female votes and power.

4. Nonsense. Why would fathers willingly bankrupt themselves in family court to reduce child support payments. So they changed the law to prevent child support being discharged by bankruptcy. \

The whole "best interests of the child" industry is a legal scam that enables the privileged judicial class - the new robber barons who produce nothing - to plunder the life savings of working families by holding their children to family court ransom.

And it is about time we stopped pretending otherwise.
Thanks for the heads up.

I see ping pong occuring within intact families where parents have different parenting styles.

I see no difference in a child maintaining a good emotional relationship with either parent whether they live together or apart, or the time spent with either parent.

Unfortunately there are other very important issues regarding emotional security that also need to be considered and shared parenting provides the answer.

My point is about the children feeling secure in two families that may contain relationships with step parents, step and half siblings.

Shared care allows enough time for the children to laugh, cry, play, fight, party etc… in both families to develop a strong emotional attachment.

If a child is subjected to EOW and they happen to get the weekend when there are some very stressful issues occuring in the family, they will leave the family feeling pretty insecure and if this occurs on a regular basis, then I see this causing serious issues in the long term.

There is a need for research on the effects shared parenting and EOW has with step or second families?

I guess Ping Pong compliments MYTH 6;

6.The 2006 Shared Parenting Family Law amendments are a one-size fits all arrangement.

You are either a Ping Pong family myth or a One Size Fits All family myth.

I think between them everybody is covered.


Kingsley Miller is the author of 'even Toddlers Need Fathers', a critique of the principle of 'Maternal Deprivation' as applied in family courts, which Professor Sir Michael Rutter described as an, 'interesting and informative guide'. He has also received a letter from Buckingham Palace stating, 'It was thoughtful of you to enclose a copy of your book 'even Toddlers Need Fathers' and Her Majesty has noted your concerns'.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets