Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Top 10 RESEARCH Myths about Shared Parenting in Australia

April said
 It would not be difficult at all to find out the care arrangements of the children involved in these abuse cases, e.g. what % of time was the child spending with each parent when the abuse occurred, so no it is not practically impossible to work that simple calculation into the figures to get a more accurate picture.
All States, except WA, stopped recording parent gender in their child abuse statistics after it became apparent, and politically embarrassing, that women were overwhelmingly the perpetrators. The WA statistics could only be obtained by repeated FOI requests. To suggest % of time with each parent, which is not even recorded, would somehow produce a different result is avoident conjecture. The fact is one parent is invariably overwhelmed with sole custody of the children which leads to neglect & abuse.
April said
  the missing data there would be how many of those single mothers are single by choice.  Not every father is involved in his child's life and there are fathers who leave by their own choice and have little or nothing to do with their kids.
Where is the evidence of fathers deserting their children or indeed the need for this massive government $$$ action against him?

No government or academic study has ever shown that large numbers of fathers are voluntarily abandoning their children.

Moreover, those studies that have addressed the fatherlessness question have arrived at a rather different conclusion. In the largest federally funded study ever undertaken on the subject, psychologist Sanford Braver found that the "deadbeat dad" who walks out on his family and evades child support "does not exist in significant numbers." Braver found at least two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women. Moreover, few of these divorces involve legal grounds, such as desertion, adultery, or violence (Braver 1998). Other studies have found much higher proportions (80%), with one concluding that "who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce" (Brinig and Allen 2000, 12627, 129, 158)  which explains why the divorce rate halves in countries implementing a presumption of equal shared care
From "The Politics of Fatherhood" by Dr Steven Baskerville

With close to half of all marriages ending in divorce, it's impossible to believe that the majority of divorcing fathers are violent. How are we supposed to believe the Family Court finding that only 17% of Australian fathers are fit to share in the separation of their own children after separation? Clearly, there is something else going on in this $$multibillion industry other than the best interests of the child

April said
  These outcomes do not necessarily occur when children are withheld from a genuinely abusive father.  This is a different scenario with different outcomes.Suggesting that the socioeconomic disadvantage that occurs in situations where a mother is left to raise kids alone because dad is in jail or has walked away from family responsibilites is an inevitable outcome of any situation where a mother raises kids alone is not a valid conclusion. Different situations have different outcomes
  Doubleplusgood on the golden bullshit there old bean. You are the self-proclaimed Master. Work in sociology? Now let's get back to the facts.

You claim to be qualified in statistics to reject the WA study based of 1505 substantiated cases while claiming the AAIMHI guidelines based on sample size of 258 children are valid.
 
Let's have some evidence then you Stalinist feminist in the best interests of the child profiteering c**t. Either come up with the evidence or admit publicly that you are a fraud and kill yourself. In sympathy with all those alleged violent fathers who kill themselves rather than hurt their children or wives  but wait now suicide is family violence & next child support arrears will be inherited. What a complete c**t you are.



sridad101 - No need to do any research re care percentages as this info is accessible from C$A. I think it is still close to 90% of parents with majority or sole care. April you are showing your true self here.
MYTH 4. Shared Parenting reduces Child Support commitments, which is why many fathers seek Shared Parenting arrangements.

All,

The following is a transcript of an interview given by Sharon Witherspoon MBE about the Nuffield Foundation contribution to the Norgrove Report which decided children should NOT have the right to contact with fathers.

I am particularly interested in the reference in the second paragraph to fathers using Shared Parenting to blackmail mothers.

Can anybody shine any light on which research she is relying upon to make this statement?

Many thanks,

kip

Now, I think these are very complicated but one growing move has been to have a default 50 / 50 split, a bit like going back to Solomon's Judgment, and what we did is convene some academics, some very notable Australian academics who had looked at what happened when Australia passed a similar law, so had a lot of empirical information about what really happened to ordinary families, and brought them together with some UK academics to talk about that in the UK context at a time when we knew that some parliamentarians were very concerned about this, and were going to bring forward proposed legislation and what that research showed is that it may well be that in some cases, where it is usually mothers were obstructing access, that this 50 / 50 insured that kids saw their fathers.

But there were lots of other consequences that were not so positive. You had fathers using this as a way of saying, 'If you don't walk away with less money than you would otherwise get then I am going to go after my 50 / 50 rights'. You had cases where judges thought they had to do 50 / 50, so even though there were serious concerns over violence or safety things weren't dealt with as seriously as they might be and basically there were a lot of negative social consequences and we were able to fund work that pulled all of those findings from Australia together and looked at the context of the current UK law is and come out with a very clear message in the briefing paper that said this was a step that probably sic was not in the best interests of children, to have a blanket provision.

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'.
Kip - the 2006 laws were not a default 50/50 split and the court always had to deal with the prospect of abuse or family violence. There was no blanket provision. The child support formula is not purely based on care but also looks at both parents income amongst other things.

There would be no research to support the claims as they are clearly contrary to the law.

Last edit: by Fairgo

srldad101 I suspect you have learned that attacking people who you perceive are challenging you in some way will silence them.  May I suggest that such an abusive approach compromises your credibility and makes it difficult for people to separate your point of view from your anger.

The reason I have posted on this site is to try to be a voice of reason.  Instead I am being assumed to be attacking shared parenting in some way, and that is not true.  To be very blunt, if you as parents who want to promote shared parenting wish to discuss research or statistics in the public arena to make your point heard you need to do so in a way which does not compromise your credibility.  Plucking quotes or statistics from the internet from unqualified sources who misrepresent research is not helping your cause one bit.  I have read much info in this research section which is so misleading that I posted to correct it.  I am not challenging it or pushing an agenda.  You need credible information to support your claims and there is barely any of it that I have seen that could not easily be discredited when put in the correct context.  The outcome is your cause can be trivialised by its lack of credibility and you will be left blaming other parties (govt, feminist groups etc) because your voice will demonstrate that you have not had the most basic understanding of the research or theories behind current practice.

Kip is doing it again now where he misrepresents the conclusions made about the statistical relationship between extra time spent with other parent and outcomes.  These "conspiracy" type allegations will not help you to be taken seriously.  There are many professionals both here and OS who are really trying to understand the processes that maximise outcomes for children in post separation situations.  What the shared parenting cause needs is the professional voice of qualified people in order to be taken seriously.  Otherwise you will end up looking like the guitarist from "Spinal Tap" who suggests his amplifier is better because "it goes to 11!"
Fairgo,

Brilliant. Thank you for this. I wanted to get back onto the MYTHS and I felt we were being blown off course. I think people have aired their views on the previous myths.

Kip - the 2006 laws were not a default 50/50 split and the court always had to deal with the prospect of abuse or family violence. There was no blanket provision. The child support formula is not purely based on care but also looks at both parents income amongst other things. There would be no research to support the claims as they are clearly contrary to the law.

In the UK the Nuffield Foundation funds feminist groups which I say is contrary to the charities endowment. I have taken this issue through the UK Charity Commission complaints procedure and it is going to an Independent Review. When they reject my claim I will see about taking it to court. The Nuffield Foundation spends approx 10million pounds per year and at least some of the money goes to groups such as the Oxford University Social Policy department as well as on the single parent organisation Gingerbread.

In an audio interview the Deputy Director for the Children and Families programme states 'You had fathers using this as a way of saying, 'If you don't walk away with less money than you would otherwise get then I am going to go after my 50 / 50 rights'. Can anybody explain the basis upon which she could be entitled to make such a statement?

A charity should not be allowed to spend its money on gender political activities which cannot be justified.

kip


PRESS RELEASE - 'We (men) can't nurse' - EVEN TODDLERS NEED FATHERS

The prominent UK fathers' rights activist Kingsley Miller condemned a set of guidelines for babies contact with their fathers as 'discredited and sexist' on Australia's 'Dads on the Air' radio programme because they were based on the idea that men could not cope with very young children.

The author of 'even Toddlers Need Fathers', which the internationally recognised expert on children's welfare Professor Sir Michael Rutter described as an 'interesting and informative guide', went on to ask whether the success of Australian Rugby and Cricket Teams meant they could not 'nurse' their own children?

The author of the guidelines Dr McIntosh recently edited a special edition of a family law journal based on the work of the 1950's British psychoanalyst Dr John Bowlby who was responsible for the theory of attachment called 'maternal deprivation' that saw 'the relationship of a young child to the mother as an important determinant of mental health' whilst the father played 'second fiddle'. 

The British fathers' rights activist said that one of the experts Dr McIntosh relied upon to support her guidelines is nick-named the 'American Bowlby' and the other is on record in her special edition as stating that, 'We (men) can't nurse'. He went on to blame the work of Dr McIntosh and other feminist researchers in Australia for holding back reforms to UK family law especially on Shared Parenting.

He has also written to the Attorney-General Nicola Roxon with the support of the Shared Parenting Council of Australia arguing that because Dr McIntosh is wedded to these gender political ideas she has disqualified herself from participating in any future government family law initiative which should be impartial and objective.

WEBPAGE - http://www.dadsontheair.com.au/shows/familists-v-feminists.html

LISTEN TO INTERVIEW -  http://youtu.be/e7lOBHnZlcc

Kingsley Miller MSc.,Cert. Ed. 12 February 2012

ARTICLES
Sydney Morning Herald, Michelle Griffin, December 15, 2011
Shared custody a mistake for the under-2s, say guidelines  -
ERROR: A link was posted here (url) but it appears to be a broken link.
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/shared-custody-a-mistake-for-the-under2s-say-guidelines-20111214-1ouy6.html#ixzz1m7SADPFD

Last edit: by Kip


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'.
Having troubles posting LOL!

Srl dad said - "No government or academic study has ever shown that large numbers of fathers are voluntarily abandoning their children."
It would be interesting to see the stats on that. Unfortunately it does seem fairly common place and has done throughout history. I think there was a study somewhere, Ill have to go searching. Though you only have to look at the 1.1 billion dollars owed in child support mainly by men to get an idead of the real picture, and thats not counting the income minimisers.


April said - "srldad101 I suspect you have learned that attacking people who you perceive are challenging you in some way will silence them.  May I suggest that such an abusive approach compromises your credibility and makes it difficult for people to separate your point of view from your anger."
Absolutely April! I am really offended by this posters posting style, I just dont want to have to be subjected to that sort of abusing, swearing and denigration. You would think the mods would put a stop to it considering the subject matters of this website. Allowing this sort of behaviour to continue not only discredits anything he says but it also discredits the entire site, it is also a direct breach of the site rules….
All,

Is there any evidence of fathers using 'shared parenting' to blackmail mothers? please.

kip

PS In the absence of any contrary evidence I will assume that the Deputy Director at the Nuffied Foundation made up the story

Last edit: by Kip


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'.
Kip - I think both parents have an interest in getting as much care possible in order to get the maximum from the asset pool in their property settlement. They say each child is worth 10% of the asset pool. In regards to child matters usually the father just wants to share the care where the mother wants sole or majority care. To keep their parenting pension (16K per year plus benefits) the mother only needs 51% care but if they can get 66% care then they will get 100% of Family Benefit payments also (6k per child per year). If money is the motivator I'd say the mother has more reason to resort to blackmail.
Is there any evidence of fathers using 'shared parenting' to blackmail mothers?
I cant quote any studies but I do know that this threat has become a stock standard tactic with abusive men to terrorize women as soon as any conflict rears up when separating, or in the first 12 months after. Its also a great way for these sort of abusers to reduce child support, preferring to hand the child over to the new wife in thier time, just because they can. It doesnt appear that these kind of people have the best interests of the child in mind at all, or perhaps they lack basic education about child psychology and see the child more as an object than a fragile and needy human.
Fairgo,

I hope you realise I appreciate your efforts. It must seem I am talking a different language. MikeT was similarly very helpful.

Part of my complaint to the Charities Commission is based on the audio interview made online. It followed my complaint which I had already lodged.

CAN ANYBODY EXPLAIN HOW Sharon Witherspoon MBE could arrive at this statement?

kip

LATE EDIT;  SAMBA SAYS,

I cant quote any studies but I do know that this threat has become a stock standard tactic with abusive men to terrorize women as soon as any conflict rears up when separating, or in the first 12 months after. Its also a great way for these sort of abusers to reduce child support, preferring to hand the child over to the new wife in thier time, just because they can. It doesnt appear that these kind of people have the best interests of the child in mind at all, or perhaps they lack basic education about child psychology and see the child more as an object than a fragile and needy human.

KIP SAYS; If you cannot supply any supporting evidence I have no other option but to treat it as hearsay used to unfairly deflect fathers from Shared Parenting in the way you suggest. Please try to find any research.


PS FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN READING THE WHOLE COMPLAINT TO THE UK CHARITIES COMMISSION INDEPENDENT REVIEW;


http://www.eventoddler...z.nf/NUFFCComREVIEW1.html

Last edit: by Kip


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'.
I would say parents have been threatening / bullying, blackmailing each other over the kids long before the 2006 FL changes so I think the question is irrelevant.
Well no, obviously its not irrelevant when the law sanctions it as a tactic for abuse.
Fairgo,

May be irrelevant to you but in terms of the campaign for Shared Parenting in the UK quite important.

(10m is spent by the Nuffield Foundation and it is supposed to be spent on improving the welfare of society)

I hope Samba can substantiate her claim otherwise the statement is very useful for my complaint.

kip

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'.
Fairgo said
. To keep their parenting pension (16K per year plus benefits) the mother only needs 51% care but if they can get 66% care then they will get 100% of Family Benefit payments also (6k per child per year). If money is the motivator I'd say the mother has more reason to resort to blackmail.
 

I question how "motivated" anyone would be to live on the figures quoted above, given that a parent would need majority care of children to be paid them and would then have all of the associated expenses to pay out of them.

If it is true (as previously mentioned in someone's post) that fathers prefer to seek 50/50 care and mothers  prefer to seek majority care this could reflect the roles that each parent has had prior to separation, i.e. dad wants to maintain his career and so doesn't want full time care of kids and mum has already had majority care of kids and wants to stay in that role.  This is probably a reflection of traditional gender roles.
April - that's after they took 80% of the settlement. Believe it or not some people don't want to ever have to go out to work and prefer to live off the system. For example the mother takes the Former matrimonial home with no debt and three kids. She receives 33k in benefits each year plus all pension concessions - free medical, schooling, discounts on property rates, electricity bill or no bill if she had solar panels etc…  is a very livable existence and I know many people who do this. 

Anyway I think that upon separation parent roles change by default.

Yes father was the bread winner but now has to put more time into being a parent as well as a father, and mum who gave up work to parent to allow dad to earn the bucks for all has to get back into the work force and do it herself. The tradition of the 70s and 80's where the mother was kept so she didn't have to work even after separation is no longer the case. Girls have been out performing boys in high school for at least the last 15 years and are encouraged to pursue careers. We now have fathers that want to give up the big career to be a parent. Is there anything wrong with that?

Kip - I just put this on the other thread - I found a book from many years ago when I was at uni - does Erikson's theories help us out?

Last edit: by Fairgo

Fairgo said
April - that's after they took 80% of the settlement….Anyway I think that upon separation parent roles change by default.

Yes father was the bread winner but now has to put more time into being a parent as well as a father, and mum who gave up work to parent to allow dad to earn the bucks for all has to get back into the work force and do it herself. The tradition of the 70s and 80's where the mother was kept so she didn't have to work even after separation is no longer the case. Girls have been out performing boys in high school for at least the last 15 years and are encouraged to pursue careers. We now have fathers that want to give up the big career to be a parent. Is there anything wrong with that?

  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  I argue that it is the traditional gender roles which contribute to the whole issue of how kids should be cared for after separation.  Courts generally prefer to preserve the care patterns that were in place prior to separation because doing so reduces the amount of adjustment that kids have to cope with after their parents split.  So if mum has been the main carer of the kids, and the marriage ends, then resources are directed to the mother to preserve her role as the main carer of the children.  In other words, the kids care patterns are preserved and by default the parent who is doing the majority of the care gets the majority of the resources.  This can be looked at as "favouring" women or it can be looked at as "favouring" existing care patterns.

So the problem reflects a societal situation that disadvantages BOTH men and women in the LONG run.  Separation entrenches these gender roles.

As parents we are in a position to change the situation for our kids when they become parents by encouraging them at a young age not to consider their future roles along gender lines, and to encourage our kids that there is a choice as to who raises little kids and it is not automatically mum.   Whenever you see ads which show mothers making school lunches or stressing over a stain on their kid's clothing point out to your kids that this type of message is wrong.

Last point, not many parents end up with 80% of assets.
Courts generally prefer to preserve the care patterns that were in place prior to separation because doing so reduces the amount of adjustment that kids have to cope with after their parents split.  So if mum has been the main carer of the kids, and the marriage ends, then resources are directed to the mother to preserve her role as the main carer of the children.  In other words, the kids care patterns are preserved and by default the parent who is doing the majority of the care gets the majority of the resources.  This can be looked at as "favouring" women or it can be looked at as "favouring" existing care patterns.

Yet if you look at the information and stats on poverty, abuse, & the outcomes of children who are raised by single parents ect one has to wonder how many parents (the majority of which are mothers) actually cope continuing in that main carer role. Perhapes preserving main carer roles at all costs, is not working.
There is a difference between outcomes for single parent households living on low incomes/welfare where the other parent does not play a role in the kids lives.  These type situations are well represented in cases of poverty, abuse or neglect.

It's not relevant to compare the stats from those situations with the typical scenario seen post separation where mum gets majority care and dad gets EOW and half school holidays etc.  These more regular type arrangements aren't necessarily more likely to result in abuse or neglect because the care pattern is one that mum would already be used to.

There is a difference between outcomes for single parent households living on low incomes/welfare where the other parent does not play a role in the kids lives.  These type situations are well represented in cases of poverty, abuse or neglect.

It's not relevant to compare the stats from those situations with the typical scenario seen post separation where mum gets majority care and dad gets EOW and half school holidays etc.  These more regular type arrangements aren't necessarily more likely to result in abuse or neglect because the care pattern is one that mum would already be used to.
So where are the statistics on abuse ect that support that? I know alot of women who do not cope with the EOW/ half school holiday stuff, despite there care level being similar to before the split.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets