Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Search – Forums

Your search gave 12 results:

Post #23548 by AJ44 on July 16th 2009, 2:24 PM (in topic “Anti-shared parenting article: 'Ping-pong' kids of divorce in hell”)

Anti-shared parenting article: 'Ping-pong' kids of divorce in hell

Herald Sun
16 July 2009

'Ping-pong' kids of divorce in hell
By Jill Singer

How many more disastrous decisions does the Family Court have to make before the Rudd Government's promised review of the Family Law Act is completed and acted on?

Several recent cases highlight the disaster the Howard government's patriarchal ideology foisted upon Australian families by introducing shared parenting laws in 1996.

The idea behind shared parenting is based on the notion that children benefit by having frequent contact with both parents, preferably 50/50.

It works for some separated couples.

But as Prof John Wade, chairman of the Family Law Council sees it, the law is flawed and has led to some horrible decisions.

One Melbourne mother is defying a Family Court order to hand over her 19-month-old daughter to the baby's father, who lives in Darwin.

The baby has always been in the primary care of Ms A but is to be ripped from her and sent back to the father in Darwin.

Ms A incurred the wrath of the court because she left Darwin without the father's permission.

Originally from Melbourne, she met him in 2006 after taking up a teaching job.

They split in May this year, whereupon Ms A decided to come back to Melbourne with their baby.

She is now working two days a week and studying, while living with her mother, who helps with child care.

The court decreed Ms A did the wrong thing by not staying in Darwin and striving to share parenting equally.

Never mind that she's from Melbourne and has done the lion's share of parenting, that the father won't move from Darwin to spend time with his child, or that the baby has extended family here.

Shared parenting laws effectively shackle women to the fathers of their children.

A woman from Bendigo, for example, could get pregnant after a quick fling on a visit to Kalgoorlie – and be forced to stay there to share parenting.

Mrs B is another Melbourne mother hit by the changes.

Part of a large Italian family, she moved to Sydney in 2001 with her husband and their two children, now six and eight.

In 2005 the marriage fell apart and Mr B set up home with his personal assistant, whom he's now planning to have more children with.

Mrs B also wants to move on by returning to Melbourne with her children, but the court won't permit it.

If Mrs B wants to see her children regularly, she must suffer living near her happy ex-husband and his new girlfriend as they make a brand new family.

Then there's Mr and Mrs R, who lived together in Sydney for many years before their daughter was born in 2002.

In early 2007 he got a job in northwest Queensland and his wife and daughter moved with him.

The marriage broke up soon after and Mrs R returned to Sydney with their daughter.

Even though he could find suitable work in Sydney, Mr R doesn't want to move back home to share parenting, because, as he told the court, he just loves his job in outback Queensland – it's important to him and interesting.

Meanwhile, Mrs R claims to have felt emotionally and physically isolated living up north.

The legal upshot is that the daughter, aged seven, must go and live in northwest Queensland with her busy father.

Unless Mrs R returns there, she will rarely get to see her daughter.

There will always be bad mothers and good fathers, but this is not the point.

The good parent has their child's best interests at heart, and the same applies to good family laws.

I'm reminded of the biblical judgment of Solomon in which two women come before Solomon claiming to be the mother of the same baby.

How to decide the real mother?

Solomon suggests a 50/50 split between the women, to be achieved by slicing the baby in half with a sword.

Rather than see her baby die, the real mother immediately reveals herself by offering to relinquish her child to the lying woman.

Solomon, of course, gives custody to the genuine mother.

Before the law was changed, it was generally seen as being in the child's best interests to have a primary home with one or other parent.

The shift towards a 50/50 split between separated parents is seeing too many children's lives dangerously disrupted.

We're now seeing children under the age of two being shared week about and often forced to travel long distances, colloquially known as ping-pong kids - shuttled back and forth between homes.

Children this young are highly dependent little creatures who thrive on stability and routine - some are still breast-fed, but being denied primary care by their mothers.

The old rules might well have seen some fathers hard done by, but the pendulum has swung too far the other way.

Any father who could deny his baby a loving mother because of the location of his job or his new girlfriend is as bad as Solomon's lying mother - prepared to destroy a child's life for her own selfish needs.

And any law that condones it is even worse.
Jill Singer: another nasty father-hating, misandrist feminist.

Quote #1: How many more disastrous decisions does the Family Court have to make before the Rudd Government's promised review of the Family Law Act is completed and acted on? Several recent cases highlight the disaster the Howard government's patriarchal ideology foisted upon Australian families by introducing shared parenting laws in 1996.

Quote #2: Shared parenting laws effectively shackle women to the fathers of their children.

Quote #3: Any father who could deny his baby a loving mother because of the location of his job or his new girlfriend is as bad as Solomon's lying mother - prepared to destroy a child's life for her own selfish needs. And any law that condones it is even worse.

Go to post

Post #23514 by AJ44 on July 14th 2009, 8:13 PM (in topic “Shared care of children reviewed”)

Shared care of children reviewed

The Age (Melbourne)
14 July 2009

Shared care of children reviewed
By Stephanie Peatling

Controversial Family Court requirements that it considers giving children equal time with both parents will be reviewed.

Critics of the current law say it is creating a generation of "ping-pong" children who have to shuttle between both parents.

"High-conflict families should not have shared care because the children end up going back and forth," the chairman of the Family Law Council, John Wade, said.

The Howard government introduced changes to the Family Law Act in 2006 which required the Family Court to consider shared care where it is deemed to be in the children's best interests.

The changes included requiring a resident parent, usually the mother, to make sure children had a meaningful relationship with the non-resident parent.

The changes saw a near doubling of the number of families with equal, or near-equal, time arrangements.

Of all new cases registered with the Child Support Agency in the year to June, 17 per cent were shared or near-equal time arrangements. In the year to June 2003, only 9 per cent of cases were in that category.

Supporters say the current law means children have a better chance of an ongoing relationship with both parents.

Critics say it forces mothers to stop breastfeeding because they no longer have their babies living with them for a majority of the time, and leads to parents being unable to take up career opportunities in other cities or countries.

A spokesman for Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the Federal Government would consider the shared-care requirements as part of a review of the Family Law Act.

The Government would continue to place the best interests of children at the heart of its approach to family law, the spokesman said.

The review will be done by the Australian Institute of Family Studies and presented to the Government later this year.

The institute is also doing separate research on what effect the 2006 changes have had on rates of child abuse.

Meanwhile, Professor Wade has criticised a suggestion by the shadow minister for families, Tony Abbott, that couples should be given the option of being married under a law which included fault-based grounds for divorce, such as adultery, cruelty, insanity and habitual drunkenness.

Professor Wade said such a system would be costly and complicated, requiring a new court or tribunal.

Go to post

Post #23506 by AJ44 on July 14th 2009, 2:51 PM (in topic “False allegations of child abuse”)

False allegations of child abuse: False allegations by mother

Yes, I've had a similar experience when my ex moved out of the family home and she went to DHS (DOCS), in Victoria, with an allegation that our daughter was being sexually abused by me!

I get a phone call from them and was interviewed by them however as my daughter (when interviewed) by them denied the allegation and showed no signs of abuse they dismissed the whole thing.

Actually I found them quite reasonable and contsructive; DHS advised me to "protect myself" from the ex. That was a few years ago. I have a great relationship with all my children, not so good with the ex however.

The only advice I can give is to play everything with a straight bat and generally speaking the truth should wash out in the end…Cheers good luck!

Go to post

Post #21457 by AJ44 on March 29th 2009, 5:11 PM (in topic “Question about CSA and rental income”)

Question about CSA and rental income:

Unfortunately your rental income will be added to his other income as the negative gearing will not be counted, (however it would be for Centrelink purposes such as FT A & B,), therefore for a CSA assesment they would asses his income as $100K, although Centrelink would take it as $76K.

CSA had the rules changed some time ago as many PAYERS were buying investment properties, negative gearing them to the max and reducing there assesable income down to a very small amount.

Maybe a Change of assesment could be done to:

1. Consider the mother's ability to work/earn an income; and

2. Maybe you could plead your case re the rental income, OR you could seek a private agreement with the childrens mother.

Go to post

Post #17491 by AJ44 on November 3rd 2008, 12:20 PM (in topic “Change of Assesment (COA)”)

Change of Assesment (COA)

Hi, just had a COA done and settled, however if one felt another COA was warranted is there any time frame between COA's being lodged?

Go to post

Post #7990 by AJ44 on April 7th 2008, 4:18 PM (in topic “QLD Psychologists Board tries to hose down acceptance of Parental Alienation”)

QLD Psychologists Board tries to hose down acceptance of Parental Alienation

The Australian newspaper
7 April 2008

Ruling debunks custody diagnosis
By Tony Koch

Child custody determinations in scores of Family Court decisions could be challenged following a ruling debunking parental alienation syndrome, a controversial diagnosis of the effects on a child when one parent denigrates the other.

The Psychologists Board of Queensland last month disciplined prominent Brisbane clinical psychologist William Wrigley, saying he had acted unprofessionally in giving evidence about parental alienation syndrome to the court.

An investigation found that Dr Wrigley's evidence three years ago, which had led to a mother losing custody of her two children, constituted "professional conduct that demonstrates incompetence or a lack of adequate knowledge, skill, judgment or care".

The Australian understands that Dr Wrigley has identified the syndrome as a factor in other cases to the Family Court. So have psychologists and psychiatrists throughout Australia.

The syndrome was diagnosed in 1985 by US clinical psychiatrist Richard Gardner, an advocate of a father's right to custody, even in cases where he had been accused of abuse. He argued that some parents who criticise other parents or step-parents in front of children were guilty of psychological abuse. Dr Gardner's theories remain highly controversial among psychiatrists, psychologists and therapists, who claim they are simplistic or erroneous.

The complaint was lodged by the Brisbane mother who lost custody of her two children in 2005 when Family Court judge Neil Buckley determined, acknowledging the evidence of Dr Wrigley, that she had affected the children with the syndrome.

Justice Buckley said Dr Wrigley's reports provided a "comprehensive and balanced assessment" of all relevant issues.

"It has to be said that in terms of objectivity, professionalism, fairness and balance, his reports are in stark contrast to those provided by (other professionals)," he said.

The board advised Dr Wrigley on March 3 of its unanimous decision that he had "acted in a way that constituted unsatisfactory conduct" for "referring to an unrecognised syndrome in his reports".

"It was inappropriate for the registrant (Dr Wrigley) to either diagnose the children or state there was a likelihood the children could develop parental alienation syndrome, as it is not a recognised syndrome," it said.

"To diagnose a patient as suffering from or demonstrating a potential to develop an unrecognised syndrome is contrary to the code of ethics."

However, the board advised that details of the disciplinary action not be recorded on the public register because it was "not within the public interest".

The board told The Australian it was precluded by law from commenting on the disciplinary action taken against Dr Wrigley.

Family Court Chief Justice Diana Bryant last year posted on the family law court website a "fact sheet" about the syndrome, which said the malady was used in evidence, but warned that it was not accepted as "a psychiatric disease".

Chief Justice Bryant's notice cited several cases "where PAS has been rejected or not accepted as a concept".

The cited cases, with names excluded, included the controversial matter for which Dr Wrigley was disciplined by the psychologists board.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23495760-2702,00.html

Go to post

Post #7918 by AJ44 on April 4th 2008, 3:16 PM (in topic “Pay rent on family home to the ex?”)

Pay rent on family home to the ex?:

I had a similar experience, my ex moved out into a rental property to pursue a relationship with a friend of mine, She also demanded rent from me as i was living in the family home with virtually no mortgage, After nearly 2 years of haggling the Registrar in the Family court recommended that at property Settlement the ex gets/got an extra 2% to compensate for her expenses! (So we settled on that basis), ….. Hope this helps.

Go to post

Post #7596 by AJ44 on March 24th 2008, 8:46 PM (in topic “Parental Alienation - Expert Witness Course - Professor Harry Zeitlin”)

Parental Alienation - Expert Witness Course - Professor Harry Zeitlin:

A good article.

I agree with Artemis appraisal.

In my case the ex walked out, taking the kids, to pursue relationship with a friend of mine. A month after she left, and after I insisted on 50/50 contact (that's what the kids wanted!), I received a phone call from DHS (Victorian version of DOCS), Child Protective Services saying that the mother has bought the daughter in with allegations of child abuse by me. After I was interviewed by them they dismissed the whole thing with some professional advice to "protect myself" from the mother!

When I insisted on having consent orders drawn up with 50/50 contact put through the same scenario again in the family court. However, as with DHS, the allegations were either dismissed or dropped and now 2 years later I have a great relationship with all my children … not such a good one with the ex … and life goes on!

Go to post

Post #5045 by AJ44 on February 11th 2008, 11:09 PM (in topic “Child Support Formula Changes July 2008 ?”)

Child Support Formula Changes July 2008 ?

Was talking to a friend who recently had a CSA Change of Assessment done.

She asked a CSA official about the proposed changes to the CSA Formula from July 2008 and was told that the "Legislation enacting this is yet to be passed through Parliament."

Is that true?

Has the proposed formula changes been enacted into law yet?

Go to post

Post #4235 by AJ44 on January 21st 2008, 8:59 PM (in topic “CSS Reform FAQ's”)

CSS Reform FAQ's:

I read the part in the FAQ's section that say Q: When are the changes taking place?

A: The new changes are taking place from 1 July 2008. You will receive your new child support assessment between March and May 2008

I actually received an assessment Last November after I had my tax return done, covering me till Feb 2009. Does this mean the assessments coming between March-May 2008 will supersede the current assessments?

Go to post

Enter the words you wish your result to include, with spaces between them.

Advanced…

The template search will find all entries matching the criteria. For example, a search with a criteria of ‘Manhattan’ in the field named ‘Description’ (assuming there is one) would find any entries containing the substring ‘Manhattan’ in the ‘Description’ field.

If there are additional categories available underneath a category then there will be a clickable ‘plus’ icon shown to the left of it. Choose your selection by clicking the label (you will see it get highlighted). Hold the ctrl key to expand all child categories also.

Recent Tweets