Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Amount of CS people pay

Your naive if you don't think people in that situation will not fight or that their kids won't turn out just as screwed up as the kid next door who's parents are under one roof.

Actually for so many psych/emotional reasons I could see why the kid in your eutopia might turn out far worse.

For the record…..As a women I would not consider myself independent if I was in some kind of marriage which had a requirement that I work with my husband (albeit in a different dept)because we don't live together with biological kids.

I live with my partner and am free and have his support to pursue a job/career outside of the relationship as I see fit. That's true independence mate…

Single mother children

Willfred said
I keep looking but I can't find the hidden cameras.



Children of Single Mothers: How Do They Really Fare? | Psychology Today


Istvan1985 said
Willfred said
I keep looking but I can't find the hidden cameras.



Children of Single Mothers: How Do They Really Fare? | Psychology Today




good parents are good parents
bad parents are bad parents
2 people may do more than 1 person (plus extrapilation)

impressive research ?

So where's the research showing how children in this new age family structure system turn out?

From the link
In a nationally representative sample of many different kinds of households - two-parent biological households, single-mother households, adoptive households, stepmother, and stepfather households - there were no differences at all.
I couldn't be bothered checking the references to this article or checking to see if Australian children where included but for arguments sake I'll take it on face value it's all legit. If this is indeed correct then why the need for a new age family structure where kids live in an office suite with married parents who work in the same building but live separately?

Parents can be good parents together, bad parents together, good parents on their own, bad parents on their own.  

Even living under separate roofs from the get go, parents are still going to have to be able to communicate and cooperate, be united when making decisions about things like discipline, rewards, money, schooling ect ect. Those types of things will still cause the same problems, dramas and ultimately repercussions for children whether their parents live together or not.

 Seems like your new age family structure is some kind of convenient (for you) solution you've dreamed up because you don't want step up and even attempt to have 24/7 emotional, physical and financial responsibility for your biological children.
Good morning all,

I have read some where about nesters, parents who keep a primary residence where the children live and the parents stay in their time with the children. Not viable for a lot of people and certainly not a place of business for children to live in !

This thread has prompted some thinking on my behalf and I think I may have a  fantastical idea!? I wonder whether some of the funding for Family relationship centres could be promoted in a fashion of prevention . IE there is a process of break down in a family. If maybe family mediation was to occur before one parent leaves the house hold . May be made mandatory before separated mediation, court etc.

Or created as an option to what we have going on now ie break up with conflict, mediation, court.

It may need to be in an advisory style of mediation / counselling ???

Or am I awake to early and still in la la land?
Splash said
Good morning all,

I have read some where about nesters, parents who keep a primary residence where the children live and the parents stay in their time with the children. Not viable for a lot of people and certainly not a place of business for children to live in!

This thread has prompted some thinking on my behalf and I think I may have a fantastical idea!? I wonder whether some of the funding for Family relationship centres could be promoted in a fashion of prevention . IE there is a process of break down in a family. If maybe family mediation was to occur before one parent leaves the house hold . May be made mandatory before separated mediation, court etc.

Or created as an option to what we have going on now ie break up with conflict, mediation, court.

It may need to be in an advisory style of mediation / counselling???

Or am I awake to early and still in la la land?

So what, In the case of abuse and domestic violence, you want to force the parents to go to mediation before one parent leaves? That would be great for the abuser to continue intimidation during the process!
I think you must be still in la la land, especially using words such as fantastical.
Hi Dsnme,

 how long does it take for an abused person to leave the situation? At first instance of violence why can`t mediation happen? Used as an advisory it could help the victim know their rights .

Victims of abuse can be so scared of what to do next and are living with the hope and often the promise of the abuser changing that I would have thought it would be supportive to have something in place that could intervene whilst they are in the situation. Ofcourse if the victim is in danger there are other options that are in place now but these situations are often he said she said.

Yes I did put this out there as fantastical  knowing it is not a word and I am probably flogging a dead horse when it comes to getting to the bottom of false accusations and power and control issues in the family setting.
I really don't think there would be a way to force counseling/ mediation on parents before separation. Options are available now as a lot of family relationship centers already offer counseling/mediation for couples prior to separation.

In relation to relationships with violence, counseling as soon as it starts may help both parties for various reasons, yet again though it's something that would be impossible to make mandatory/enforce.   
Hi Frenzy,

When I say mandatory I refer to the mandatory mediation after the fact that is in place now. You can not get to court with out a certificate to say you have given it a reasonable go.

What if it became a process that began before complete break down of the relationship. Along the lines of one partner feels they want to end the realtionship for what ever reason. They make the effort to mediate that process inviting the other party along. The other party either attends or opts out and does not recieve a certificate of participation.

Would that not put the cards on the table well before any real difficulties of the aftermath ? I realise this would mean a lot of training for counsellors and other proffesionals in this category but there could well be niche for something like this.

I am no expert and am only putting ideas out there that don`t have a hidden camera involved !
Frenzy said
Your naive if you don't think people in that situation will not fight or that their kids won't turn out just as screwed up as the kid next door who's parents are under one roof.

Actually for so many psych/emotional reasons I could see why the kid in your eutopia might turn out far worse.
Theory of interdependence is a very modern idea and I don't know of anywhere currently where people use the framework for their marriage anywhere. The framework teaches couples how to manage their own territory and space and how to become independent.

It is certainly possible to do for anyone with a bit of motivation, money and knowledge to make their marriage work.
Frenzy said
For the record…..As a women I would not consider myself independent if I was in some kind of marriage which had a requirement that I work with my husband (albeit in a different dept)because we don't live together with biological kids.
To me the above statement obvious ally suggests you have no understanding of the potential impact of a interdependent framework on
your relationships.
Frenzy said
I live with my partner and am free and have his support to pursue a job/career outside of the relationship as I see fit. That's true independence mate…
This is fine and normal and I would actually be surprised if you got it straight away.  It is true many people have after many years learned how to live independently in the traditional co-habitual setting but usually after much work by both parties. The interdependant framework has the potential to save many years of frustration as either party learns how to adapt to the other and get along faster.

YouTube

For the record many IVF clinics in Australia offer treatment for single mothers and it is not a requirement to have a current partner to have a child. It is also true many clinics have differing opinions and policies on it. There are probably some clinics who would be less likely to offer treatment to a single women but I believe there are many that do.

Having some kind of reproductive disorder is not a nessasary to be considered for IVF treatment. Being a single women is a very simlar
situation as many women would prefer to have a kid, form a relationship on their own with it before considering finding a husband.
Than settle for someone not right and then end up with a co-dependent style relationship and divorcing in a few years.

Also I found the following quite relevant to all this-

Legal Facts for Sperm Donors and Co-Parents

Many people are doing private sperm donations these days as they organize this through websites like these.

This can be to partnered lesbian, straight and single women alike. It is not uncommon but to my understanding the law is going through a major transition period with all the new conception styles which are emerging.


Note the web site is related to overseas legislation not Australian but it does give a very good insight into the issues.

Last edit: by Secretary SPCA

Interdependance

Guest said
Theory of Interdependance. This is where i meant to post this.

Sec SPCA said
 This is a very interesting diagram.

It shows a move to a new concept moving away from a "Nuclear family" to that of a "Concept future family" relationship called by the author "Co-habitual living". This is a very valid theory that should be explored fully and in fact in older days around the 1960's and early 1970's it was not uncommon for Bank Managers and Post Masters to have their families live "upstairs" and the Bank Manager or Post Master would pop downstairs to work.

We have also example cases of families that this sort of concept has been tried but in one of them it has been a dismal failure as the other party alleges that there is abuse and fearing for their safety. The house in the case I am thinking about is actually a large single floor dwelling but divided down the middle and it has TWO front doors and divided fenced back yard. So although one roof predominately, is divided by solid walls into two distinct but adjoined dwellings.

This "Co-habitual living" might well be further defined and if there is interest we can set up a separate topic as the nuclear family comes under significant strain in modern times. Perhaps the freedom of the "Co-habitual living". might mean less frictions and less propensity to raised voices about minor issues.

I would be interested in hearing more about this new concept family model

Attachment
156 views (285 KB)

Last edit: by Secretary SPCA

This is fine and normal and I would actually be surprised if you got it straight away.  It is true many people have after many years learned how to live independently in the traditional co-habitual setting but usually after much work by both parties.
I've had it since we met….in every relationship i've been in i've been able to choose where I work and with whom. Never have I had a man dictate to me where I should work. Wouldn't get into a relationship with someone like that. None of my female freinds are in relationships like that either, other then the odd one that is in an abuse relationship.

If people want to co-live or what ever it's called that's fine but I can't see that it will offer any chance of a better outcome for a child/children. The freedom of co living (not that I call being forced to work with someone freedom) could cause other issues such as jealously, anger, resentment……….no matter how you structure a family there will be many many issues. 


Having some kind of reproductive disorder is not a nessasary to be considered for IVF treatment. Being a single women is a very simlar situation as many women would prefer to have a kid, form a relationship on their own with it before considering finding a husband.
Can't say I subscribe to the theory that men/fathers interfere with us women bonding with our children. Even if a woman has a child then finds a man that relationship then could pose problems for the child, if it's not a healthy supportive relationship.

INTERDEPDENCE

Guest said
Guest said
Theory of Interdependance. This is where i meant to post this.

Sec SPCA said
 This is a very interesting diagram.

It shows a move to a new concept moving away from a "Nuclear family" to that of a "Concept future family" relationship called by the author "Co-habitual living". This is a very valid theory that should be explored fully and in fact in older days around the 1960's and early 1970's it was not uncommon for Bank Managers and Post Masters to have their families live "upstairs" and the Bank Manager or Post Master would pop downstairs to work.

We have also example cases of families that this sort of concept has been tried but in one of them it has been a dismal failure as the other party alleges that there is abuse and fearing for their safety. The house in the case I am thinking about is actually a large single floor dwelling but divided down the middle and it has TWO front doors and divided fenced back yard. So although one roof predominately, is divided by solid walls into two distinct but adjoined dwellings.

This "Co-habitual living" might well be further defined and if there is interest we can set up a separate topic as the nuclear family comes under significant strain in modern times. Perhaps the freedom of the "Co-habitual living". might mean less frictions and less propensity to raised voices about minor issues.

I would be interested in hearing more about this new concept family model
 
Attachment
156 views (285 KB)

I completed my Bachular of Social Science in 2010.

When we studied relationships we went through an entire unit on this topic. It teaches you how to be independant and thats the whole point of it. I think of it as kinda like having

the single parent stability in terms of reduced relationship conflict while still having two parents at the scene to contributing to raising a kid. The relationship design layout gives each person their own smaller house rather than a single

bigger house for the whole family. I am going to have a look at co-habitual living for sure as my interest has become re-sparked. The described layout teaches you its OK to be selfish so long as your partner is EQUALLY

as selfish, otherwise its bad and causes your relationship to fail. Independance is the goal of interdependance as well as to teach each person to consider their own feelings as the most important moral consideration of the relationship

and to always put these first. I think many people who are quite experienced with relationships manage in the normal setting we see everywhere today (co-habitual) but also that there are many that could benefit from this layout a lot

and in many cases it would make the difference of going through nasty divorse settlement and not.
That diagram is fascinating. So basically you have to own your own commercial business and then modify it for living, work and children upstairs. I want it!

Frenzy-

I think some couples are both naturally very independant and perhaps this reflects your situation.
But it is also true many are not and struggle to make things work.

It's kinda like a woman who wants 4 hours of a guys time per 24 hour day and a man who only wants 1 of hers.
The woman sees the man as a selfish and self centered pig and the man sees her as overly emotional, selfless, clingy,
considerate and a dam right pain.

If they both learn to settle for 1 hour per day or meet at two it may work out as they learn to understand each other.

Either the girl learns to be more like the man or the man learns to be more like the woman or they give up!

Two independant people can relate well but an independant and non-independant relationship will almost always fail.
Istvan, I have a self reliant independent nature, I grew up in a dysfunctional family, had to rely on myself. My partner has a more insecure and dependent nature, he grew up in a happy but somewhat over protective family. For some reason our relationship works well.

That diagram is fascinating. So basically you have to own your own commercial business and then modify it for living, work and children upstairs. I want it!
Where does the couple get the money from to buy & set up this business structure in the first place? If a couple sets it up and one wants out of the deal whats to stop an ugly property settlement and ugly fight over the child/ren like what can goes on in the breakdown of traditional nuclear family relationships? If a child is kept shielded from seeing adults interact (the good and bad of adult relationships) because the parents communicate via computer how is that going to effect the child?
Frenzy said
Istvan, I have a self reliant independent nature, I grew up in a dysfunctional family, had to rely on myself. My partner has a more insecure and dependent nature, he grew up in a happy but somewhat over protective family. For some reason our relationship works well.

That diagram is fascinating. So basically you have to own your own commercial business and then modify it for living, work and children upstairs. I want it!
Where does the couple get the money from to buy & set up this business structure in the first place? If a couple sets it up and one wants out of the deal whats to stop an ugly property settlement and ugly fight over the child/ren like what can goes on in the breakdown of traditional nuclear family relationships? If a child is kept shielded from seeing adults interact (the good and bad of adult relationships) because the parents communicate via computer how is that going to effect the child?


Well today I was about town and noticed many retail stores which have the option for upper living by owner occupiers.

Have a look at the following photo for a building example.

http://www.commercialrealestate.com.au/Property/2009936834/Commerical%20Sale/QLD/ALBION/Offices/

This could run a business on the lower level while raising a family upstairs. That's assuming it is in a commercial area and has a workable business idea.

From what I can gather many small commercial buildings are cheaper than houses. In my area some commercial buildings are around
200,000 where a 3 beddy house is 300-500K.

Each parent would only require a 1 beddy set-up for themselves so let's imagine 200K by 2 for each of these and 200K for the business would be a 600K loan to start a family. It could be a lot more but depends a lot on your area. The commercial building would likely
require work to get the living quarters up to scratch.

The following has office area which could be converted to living.

http://www.commercialrealestate.com.au/Property/2009935803/Commerical%20Sale/QLD/ALBION/Industrial-Warehouse%2c%20Showrooms-Bulky%20Goods/

Also each parent would need to be fairly closeby.

Commercial properties would have very different tax rules over standard housing and if you had a profitable business then I think you would be able to tax deduct a very large part of it.

Or if you rent then perhaps some investors who wanted to promote the idea could lease a commercial business to a family to run were both patents live nearby.







600k to start a family, think I had about $100 when my daughter was born..600k is a very big investment and alot to lose in break-up and property settlement. When your women finds a good stable bloke who is emotionally available (one who can offer her things like trust, commitment, love, time ect) and wants out of your deal you'll lose your home, businesses and kids in one foul swoop Istvan.
Frenzy said
600k to start a family, think I had about $100 when my daughter was born..600k is a very big investment and alot to lose in break-up and property settlement. When your women finds a good stable bloke who is emotionally available (one who can offer her things like trust, commitment, love, time ect) and wants out of your deal you'll lose your home, businesses and kids in one foul swoop Istvan.


Well imagine your partner has it's own house nearby. If you breakup you become co-parents and each partner should share children at their houses for half of the time.

I think the only thing that would need to be separated would be the value of the commercial business considering you both live in your own separate houses. I should not be able to take your house and you not be able to take mine.

I don't know what the law would say about this situation but in thus case quite literally, you have your house and I have MINE. Not ours or "the families" for example.
Owning and paying off 2 separate houses, would only add enormous financial pressure to a relationship. Money is the number one reason for conflict and hostility - you sure you want to go down that road?. You could both rent separately but that may create feelings of hostility and renting can be as expensive as buying, so you've still got the issue of making enough money to cover twice the average families financial needs.

Sadly also what you think it morally right may not necessarily be how it pans out if it all ends, you can't control how the other person will react. The other parent after separation may wish to move elsewhere and not share 50/50 care with you. That could negatively effect your child/ren.
Well yesterday I saw a huge building with small apartments up top and a large retail store down the bottom.

This could be adapted to this type of cenario just imagine a store staffed with 40 people and all their children living upstairs and then adults living separately.


Anyhow when you think of how much some people put into building a single huge house for their family it makes you think it might be a similar cost.

It's hard to have family unless you got someone who promises to not budge from you till death does you apart which is what I want.

But to stay together for reasons other than the children I personally would need someone to be very independant like what the framework would train someone to do.

Infact I relate best to a independant person and struggle to deal with overly emotional persons and closeness.
I know for a fact if I married someone in the
traditional co-habitation sense I would find it
difficult after a while.

1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets