A Gender Agenda

John and Janette, Joint Residency Arrangement, Chapter Two


(Background: Are your shoes mucky?)

John finds himself facing the most difficult dilemma of his life – an awful choice between what’s good for the country, and what’s good for his children. It was the invite that threw him – a date to dress up in Hawaiian shirts and flex some pearly whites at the annual APEC meet. His best mate Dubbs would be going, along with Asia-Pacific leaders more vertically challenged than our Prime Miniature, but doh, the meeting date landed on a week he had the kids.

Worse still, Janette was becoming more and more hard to deal with. She had serious difficulty getting back into her teaching career following the years she’d taken off, plus Brendan Nelson’s new policy of subsidising schools that took on male teachers was proving to be a real hurdle. There were also her constant nag-nag-nags of why there weren’t as many GPs who offered bulk billing in the neighbourhood.

She’d even been so desperate she’d tried to get assistance from a lefty welfare organisation. Didn’t matter though, as the charity’s doors were closed because its lifeblood had been cut with the loss of its tax deductibility status. That’ll teach ’em for trying to clothe and feed those grubby would-be-terrorists on temporary protection visas.

The renovations to Kirribilli were also becoming a nuisance. The kids had complained that shifting between Mum and Dad each week was a real drag. Melanie was concerned her marks were suffering from the constant change in environment, and as such she feared she mightn’t get into law school. Janette was already worrying about the kids’ pending HECS debts with the increased costs of higher education. Janette also needed a lawyer.

To ease the logistical difficulties, John decided to build a wing for Janette that had access to each of the kids’ rooms so they wouldn’t have to shift each week anymore (reno costs split 50/50 of course). But the builders were now proving problematic, with Tony ‘paid maternity leave over my dead body’ Abbott’s threats to conduct site visits on the premises. Tensions all round were rising. ABC journalists seemed to be asking more questions than normal.

Then came that APEC invite. It didn’t help that Peter Costello kept muttering on about this word ‘tolerance’, so much so that he’d offered John the option of job sharing because of his unique situation. But it wasn’t all that unique. Thanks to his Government’s introduction of joint residency as the presumption in family law, he was just like most other separated parents with children (except with more money). Finally, he felt like a man of the people. But for how long? While polling showed divorce rates were on the decline, it seemed the mothers of Australia, minus Pauline, were becoming increasingly unhappy.


Shared parenting scenarios aside, the emails Margo forwarded in response to ‘Are your shoes mucky?’ are divided on whether there is a gender agenda at play with the proposal to introduce rebuttable joint residency as the presumption in Family Law.

Chantal Bock wrote, “Being a good parent has nothing to do with gender so please stop making it a gender issue.”

Trevor said, “The only reason gender comes into the debate is because of the biased way the system rewards the custodial parent (female most of the time as the Family Court still talks about mothers as the primary carers even though women want equality in the workplace it seems they want to stay at home and play mummies too!)”, while Kathleen Swinbourne argued, “anybody who thinks this is not a gender issue is seriously deluded.”

Whether you believe there is or isn’t a gender agenda to this proposal, the responses arguing for or against the introduction of rebuttable joint residency are divided almost entirely between the sexes. In the lead into ‘Are your shoes mucky?’ Margo described the issue as a “fraught” one. The emails in response certainly back this up.

The common threads in the responses from supporters of this proposal (predominantly men) is that the Family Court currently unfairly favours mothers, that some mothers see children as “prizes” following separation, and that rebuttable joint residency would provide separating parents with an “equal” starting point. Phil Sutcliffe echoed the sentiments of several emails in support of the proposal, by arguing the current system is a “one-size-fits-women-only policy”.

The responses from Dads reveal feelings of frustration and powerlessness when it comes to family law, with the argument that joint residency will solve this. While shared parenting arrangements are to be commended (and could perhaps work in some of these situations), the introduction of joint residency as the presumption in family law for all separating couples with children still raises serious concerns.

The responses against the proposal are almost entirely from women. Some of their concerns/fears include the background of the chief lobbyists of this proposal, the connection of male role models with fathers, the proposal’s potential to trap women, and the threat of an increase in family violence if rebuttable joint residency makes it to the legislative table.

When The 7:30 Report covered the story last week, Children and Youth Affairs Minister Larry Anthony responded to concerns about an increase in family violence. He said, “We’re not talking about the case where there’s clear evidence of abuse or there’s been neglect, or where there’s a very good reason why there shouldn’t be that contact or there shouldn’t be that shared care. So I think you’ve got to separate that and I think that’s an easy point of criticism.”

It is an easy point of criticism Larry, but the problem with family violence is the hidden nature of it. It is already grossly under-reported. Too often, there is not “clear evidence” as the Minister suggests. While the crux of the debate on joint residency should lie with shared parenting, and whether this would currently work for the majority of children of separated couples, the fear of an increase in family violence is very real for some people and has a relevant place in this debate. The reality of family violence is that women and children are the overwhelming victims. Without “clear evidence” of family violence, how would survivors/victims rebut the presumption of joint residency?

Again, it comes back to the main beef with this proposal: the presumption, and the presumption this proposal will be in the best interests of the majority of children. Presumptions in law are best put in practice when it suits the vast majority of cases. Despite some very emotional emails from fathers on this issue, the argument that rebuttable joint residency will suit the majority of children of all separating parents is not convincing. Far from it.

Responses to the issue have been divided into each side – those for the introduction of rebuttable joint residency and those against. This was the easiest way of divvying up the arguments and in a way it demonstrates the great divide between responses. It also ties nicely into the issue of 50/50 time share.

First, a response from Lindsay who is in a shared parenting arrangement with his former partner and daughter. Then, a response from Michael Keayes who had an issue with my scenario of John and Janette Howard in a joint residency arrangement, followed by emails supporting the proposal from Peter Parkinson, Trevor, Julian Fitzgerald, Erich and Chantal Bock (the only woman to email in favour).

Responses against the proposal are from Jennifer, Marilyn Shepherd, Helen Smart, Debbie Kirkwood and Kathleen Swinbourne.



I know the whole issue of shared (joint) parenting and residency (aka custody) is a fraught issue.

My daughter has been 50:50 share parenting and residence (week about) now for 6 1/2 years (from age 7-13). So far so good, but there have been hiccups along the way, but for her it has worked well. It may change as she gets older and studies and friends become more central, and that’s to be expected.

We essentially came up with our own shared parenting plan (with a little help from a friendly FCA counsellor, who helped iron out a few things initially, while feelings were raw) and had it registered with the FCA. Since then it hasn’t been referred to much, but has guided things and is being varied much more now as we’ve got the hang of it.


Michael Keayes

Polly, the scenario you put up is stupid. If John Howard wanted equal shared care of his kids if he ever got divorced, he would as a matter of necessity quit his job and take another job. That is what a good father would do. If he didn’t quit he would not get shared care. That is the whole idea of rebuttable!! Most dads are not the Prime Minister. Most dads can arrange their lives around their kids. If they can’t then they will not ask for shared care, or will agree on something else with the other parent.


Peter Parkinson

I believe that joint custody should be the starting point in all divorce proceedings. I have 13 years bad experience with the FCA and CSA to prove it!

Sure, there are situations where joint custody is inappropriate, like pedophilia, violence against the children or geographically impossible sharing. But, if shared custody was the starting point in all cases, it would remove the legal conspiracy from the equation and not have legal conspiracy scum put ideas into mothers heads that they can get a cushy lifestyle and never have to work again, where the father pays everything through the CSA “for ever”, if they seek custody.

It would also eliminate 39% of CSA case fathers from the dole! = around 400,000 fathers!

Of course this will be challenged by the legal conspiracy scum, as they will become redundant in most cases – pity, all those years at university and no Mercedes or BMW at the end of it – our hearts bleed!

It will also stop the hated FCA’s Alistair Nicholson from quoting false data into the media such as only 6% of cases are contested, when he knows only too well that most cases settle by consent because of his legal conspiracy friends needs for costs and where fathers are told it will cost $50,000 to contest custody and in the end the Family Court will give custody to the woman.

So there you have it – a sensible idea that will work. Fathers will get access to children, mothers will be asked to stop leaning on the Australian Taxpayer for family benefits (and be asked to get a job after divorce), the Child Support Agency will be able to function as only a collection agency when mothers really do have custody, the Family Court won’t be tied up with Legal Conspiracy scum out to get all the money for their Mercedes in one weeks work, and all legal conspiracy scum will be sidelined to earn a living in the real world.

Only positives and everyone wins – whets wrong with that?



It seems that Polly Bush rationalises and analyses at a superficial level. She only looks at parts of the BIG picture. 50-50 Shared Parenting is far broader than she concedes or possibly comprehends.

Firstly, by removing the children as the prize, divorce will not be so attractive as the majority of divorces in this country are initiated by the mother. This could affect terms of the property settlement. Thus the ‘prizes of divorce’ will be diminished. Result = Less divorce. This is better for families AND kids.

Her statement “Anthony has been quick to argue the Inquiry is “not about gender politics”. But isn’t it? One of John Howard’s public reasons for holding the Inquiry is out of concern for boys and the lack of so-called male role models. This nicely ties in with Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson’s recent agonising over the lack of male teachers in schools.” shows her dated feminist concepts and gender bias. The only reason gender comes into the debate is because of the biased way the system rewards the custodial parent (female most of the time as the FC still talks about mothers as the primary carers even though women want equality in the workplace it seems they want to stay at home and play mummies too!). This author needs to read some modern feminist

literature. (Polly: I’m curious to hear your suggestions.)

She goes on to quote Justice Nicholson as saying: “The fact is that we do live in a society where the mother is the primary care giver in most intact marriages. It is therefore not surprising that parents are most likely to decide that mothers should retain that primary responsibility it is also not surprising that judges will choose an environment that provides the greatest continuity and least disruption for children.” Nich lives back in the 1950’s it seems.

He has made more appropriate statements like “Chief Justice Nicholson gave at the 25th conference of the family court in Sydney in July 2001. On page 287 the CJ concurs with the following: “The original architects of the [Family Law] act recognised that the adversarial system was an inappropriate vehicle for the resolution of family disputes in the vast majority of cases, particularly where the continued parenting of children was an issue.”

The Chief Justice also states in the Advertiser on 2nd July 2003 “I have long advocated a less adversarial system, as practised in a number of European countries, and the Family Court is investigating ways in which this approach may be introduced in order to reduce the conflict and tension of court appearances”. Why not use a Family Matters Tribunal? FC only for Appeals? Much cheaper, efficient and faster. Less work for the legal parasites.

My daughter travels from Brisbane to Sydney regularly to spend time with me. She loves it. It is an exciting time to look forward to. She actually prefers to be in my company. How is this bad for kids? Surely better than not spending time with Dad. These type of arguments are grasping at straws and most superficial. Arguing the logistics is stupid. Parents will work them out in the best interests of their kids. Mediation can help this if required.

(Polly: I never argued against Dad time – am generally a fan of it. I also think the logistical requirements involved in shared residency are very important to the debate.)

She goes on: “A study released by a University of NSW researcher last week calculated the amount of time working mothers and fathers of young children had each day for their own leisure time. Of the 4000 families researched in the study, working fathers are said to have one hour and 12 minutes a day free time. For working mothers, it’s estimated at less than a second per day.” So if this is so does not this indicate that Dads have more time available to spend with the kids? More Shared parenting time? Dads should be the primary carers if this is true! It indicates that working mothers don’t have time for their prizes, sorry, kids. Is she suggesting that ALL mothers should not work but be mummies full time?

(Polly: In response to your questions above- yes; if only; and no)

She writes: “If legislation orders joint residency as the presumption, the number of couples appearing in the Family Court to alter this arrangement could actually increase. This would add significant costs to the separating couples involved, which in turn could cause debt to spiral and the rest. The Law Council of Australia’s Michael Foster estimates that with rebuttable joint residency in place, “there would be many more [court] proceedings … and far fewer settlements”.

I believe the opposite will be true. There will be less divorce. The prizes will be reduced. Responsibilities placed upon parents re the children will increase. Fewer will go to the FC in the hope of snaring a big win. The odds will not appear so good any more. Perhaps mediation will be mandated re contact arrangements.

She then quotes Patrick Parkinson: “There’s no way you could say it is in the best interest of the majority of children. If there’s a presumption, a lot of women will be pressured into it because they can’t afford $20,000 to litigate.” Who is in this exact situation now re residency? FATHERS are. Who are pressured into signing Consent Orders for contact now? Fathers are. Who are restricted to 109 nights of contact per year because of the reduced prize for the mother? Fathers are.

She simply is re-stating all the old stuff and failing to see the BIG PICTURE. This concept has had a huge effect where it has been introduced. Removing the prizes from the board lowers the divorce rate and allows the kids to have two parents again even if they are divorced.


Julian Fitzgerald

I have read your piece in the Sydney Morning Herald and I think you have simply misunderstood what rebuttable presumptive equal custody does.

You seem to think that it is about splitting time equally and changing fathers’ and mothers’ roles in the family. You also seem to think it is a one-size-fits-all solution.

So the main body of your article is designed to lampoon such ideas, and you strive to do this by comparing before and after, by comparing what fathers normally do in a marriage or partnership, with what they would do if there was this ludicrous obsession with equal time between parents.

So, let me tell you what the equal parenting concept actually means. It means giving children absolute security on the key issue of having both their natural parents, whether the parents live together or apart. This relational confidence, by the way, is about the most critical factor in a child’s stability, it comes first, not last.

It means giving separated parents the same EQUAL say in how their children are brought up as the parity of esteem parents are given, under the law, when they live together.

It means giving parents who disagree, but don’t live together, the same rights to disagree and sort out their disagreements as they would have if they lived together – without their children being threatened with the loss of one of their parents.

It means giving ALL parents, without discriminating on grounds of sex, the ability to have a say in how they organise their lives, on an equitable footing, without having the courts designating who does how much.

It means allowing all natural families, not just those who are designated as family units by officials, the same rights under the law, with the same penalties if they transgress the law as any other citizen.

It’s actually about fairness, security for children and adults, and allowing people to run their own families.

I can tell you something very simple as a hands-on, caring parent, who has been excluded from my daughter’s life, illegally, in breach of mine and my daughter’s family rights, by the courts, for seven years now.

You can’t look after children if you’re not there to care. You can’t be a good parent if the whole system is conspiring against your being a parent at all. You can’t be the father in your daughter’s life if she knows this is conditional on your ex-wife and the courts’ permission, on the school’s correct behaviour in maintaining contact with you, on the 101 areas in which you ARE being discriminated against as a parent, with the full backing of the state.

I happen to think that having a loving father is at least as important for a little girl as it is for a little boy. I don’t agree with John Howard there. I know, both from my own experience as a child of divorce and from my experience as an involuntary ex-father, that the system is so inherently biased against good parents when they are fathers that the way to start any change is to give a child an equal right to both parents, and proceed from there.

That’s what rebuttable presumptive equal parenting MEANS. It allows both parents to choose how they parent and when they parent, just as it does in a marriage, or a partnership. That is after all the commitment both parents have entered into when bringing their children into the world.

You need to re-write your article. It’s based on a false premise. The only way in which the present proposals to change the law are one-size-fits-all is that they are non-sexist, and they give children an equal right to both parents, whether together or apart, a right that presently doesn’t exist, in practice. It’s not the children who need to get this message, it’s the parents and the professionals who have supported female gatekeeping and the exclusion of fathers from children’s lives. It’s not the business of the state to put itself between children and their parents – either of them.



You say that “residency issues should still be judged on an individual basis, therefore I’m against a one size fits all policy”.

I couldn’t agree with you more, but the reality is that there is in place a policy of just that. Unless you have a very large bucket full of money, and you happen to get a reasonable judge, as a father you have almost no chance of obtaining residency. There is an industry set up which has robbed my children of their future (over $250K in costs) just so that I can fulfill my kids strongest wishes to see their dad.

There are some very simple solutions for most of the arguments against shared parenting, even with difficult breakups. The only thing really missing is the political willpower to realise two things:

1) The role of fatherhood has changed dramatically for the better in the last 30 years, and is not being recognised.

2) Women are no better or worse than men when it comes to abuse. It takes different forms, but an abusive woman will cause just as much damage as an abusive man, although it is normally more sophisticated and difficult to trace.

I only get to see my kids every two weeks, yet when my wife and I were together, I spent more time with the kids than she did.

What most people don’t realise is that in most cases the parents will work it out for themselves. It is precisely in the cases that go to court that the presumption of equal contact should exist. This is necessary to prevent a spiteful parent from preventing meaningful contact with the other parent. I find it impossible to repair the neglect that my son receives in two days a fortnight. He is not receiving the therapy he needs for his disability.

There is no doubt that a stable home with both parents is optimal, but if that can’t be the case, my kids should not be suffering the loss they are currently feeling because my ex is hell bent on revenge.


Chantal Bock

Wake up Polly, not sure where you have been but the current system is one size fits all.

The mother gets the kids the father becomes the visitor. She gets the prize, oops, I mean children and therefore up to 80% of the assets and he gets to visitation rights to his children but all the financially burden towards maintaining his kids and ex spouse.

Being a good parent has nothing to do with gender so please stop making it a gender issue.

Your reporting is selective only taking bits that suit your argument a good example poor journalism. Perhaps you should talk about the mothers who constantly deny contact, who raise false allegations of sexual abuse and false AVO’s all for the sake of a few dollars. Are these examples of good parenting?

It is your brand of feminism that keeps women from achieving true equality. Why should men not be able to look after the children 50% of the time? So what if men might only work part time to have the children 50% of the time. Are women afraid that it would mean that they might have less money?

It seems like the real argument that women like you have against joint custody is that women might have to finally pull our weight when it comes to providing for our children. It is time women stop treating men as walking wallets to be rip off when it suits us.




I am one mother who if the legislation for rebuttable presumption of shared custody had already been in place, would not have seen her children again.

I fled with the children from an isolated rural property at a time when they were being hurt. As Polly’s article says, the best interests of the children are being lost in this new notion about family break up.

All the odds under the new proposals would have been in the abusive father’s favour. As it is now, I am scared for my daughter’s future if this legislation is enacted.


Marilyn Shepherd

Unlike John Howard I have been involved in a child custody case, would that it was as simple as this man seems to think. In my case I had a step-father trying to take my daughter from me by declaring that I was mad – not really technically, certifiably mad – just mad for leaving wonderful him. He was her step-father by the way, not mine, but he lost the case anyway and she’s now married with kids of her own.

Other women cannot afford even basic legal aid so they get screwed over time and again. I remember one woman I counselled for three years.

Her husband beat the crap out of her and molested their little girl. She finally left him, took the kids and hid in a women’s shelter for the next year. Then he found her, followed her, spied on her, beat the kids on his access visits and kept getting away with it.

When shared custody was worked out he rarely took the children when he should have, and bashed the son every time he did. He also refused to stop sleeping with the little girl for the next year – she was the ripe old age of 6 by then, and the mother was rendered totally powerless. Each and every time she reported him he said she was lying and hired more lawyers and spies to trail her.

If she refused to take the children she was threatened with losing them, if she had a boyfriend her husband threatened him, he even had her followed to my home on a number of occasions and had me followed.

Spooky stuff, and all because she had to leave to save her life.

She got almost full custody of the kids after two years, she got the house back with a huge mortgage and he kept right on threatening and following her.

I really wish Howard would tell me how that one could have worked and what sort of life the little girl could have had.

Helen Smart

(Background: I blogged about this at castironbalcony)

As someone who isn’t directly involved in the issue, my concern is that the PM has used a very suss lobby group which may include John Abbott, the “Blackshirts” leader. I’m sure you have heard of him. My concern is not just for the fact that this impracticable policy might be brought in, but the poor quality of the lobby groups and think tanks which are given such enormous power. In other words, if the best advice John Howard can get access to is via groups like rhfinc then we are all in trouble.

Another slant you might find interesting is Trish Wilson’s blog.

In the US, where rebuttable joint custody is already law, “moveaways” have become an issue. In other words, once rebuttable joint custody has become the norm, there will be increased pressure on women not to move interstate, overseas or more than some statutory distance away from the father. The upshot is, the mobility of separated mothers will be extremely limited.

(Polly: When Murray Mottram reported on the lobbying efforts in The Age, he wrote, “John Abbott’s main claim to fame is that he is the cousin of the “Postcard Bandit”, bank robber Brenden Abbott, whose infamous deeds were depicted in a telemovie. But if John Howard goes ahead with changes to Family Court custody battles, John Abbott and two other Adelaide advocates of father’s rights will take credit for laying the groundwork”. What Mottram’s report did not mention was whether this was the same John Abbott whose claim to fame is leading the Blackshirts, a vigilante father’s group.)


Debbie Kirkwood

I really like the story about John and Janette because I’m not sure we should be taking this whole issue too seriously. I just can’t believe that it could ever work. People have these fantasies that we live in a world where mum and dad are both ace parents and have wonderful relationships with their children and with each other. If it was so great, people would not be separating in droves and we would not have such a high prevalence of family violence, sexual abuse and child abuse. This is the reality we have to deal with.

People say that rebuttable joint custody is good because it reduces the divorce rate. This is ludicrous. What it means is that women are forced to stay in relationships which at the very least make the whole family unhappy and which may place women and children at risk of violence and other forms of abuse. It is difficult enough for women to leave violent relationships due to social and economic reasons and fear of violent retaliation. We should not forget that 50% of women killed by their violent partners are killed trying to leave the relationship.

This proposed policy will only make it more difficult for women to leave because they will fear losing access to their children and fear the resulting situation in which men will have access without the woman being present. Given what we know about the sexual abuse of children I feel very concerned about this.

But really, I just can’t see men taking responsibility for children in the way this proposal would require. They generally don’t do it now so what is going to make this change?

The other scary aspect of this issue is the angry men’s lobby who have succeeded in bullying this on to the agenda. They epitomise the whole reason why this policy is dangerous for women and children. They don’t even have an awareness of the inappropriateness of their actions such as has been displayed by the ‘Blackshirts’ in Victoria for some time now.

This idea is part of a backlash against feminism and an attempt to constuct men as victims. It is ludicrous.


Kathleen Swinbourne, President, Sole Parents Union

It was with a sense of relief that I read Polly’s piece on joint custody. Finally – somebody in the media seems to have got it! The argument is not about whether joint custody can be good for kids – but in what circumstances. Yes, some couples do make it work, but as she pointed out, they have chosen to do that and put intense effort into succeeding.

This is something that won’t work for everybody – and certainly not for those couples, or their children, who appear before the Family Court. These tend to be the most intractable, hostile cases, often including issues of domestic violence and/or child abuse. Even where violence or abuse is not present, these couples are hardly likely to be able to put aside

their differences and hostilities to concentrate on what’s best for their kids.

Anybody who thinks this is not a gender issue is seriously deluded. Of course it is. It is about the concept of mothering generally, and whether ‘mothers’ are good for boys, whether they are ‘tough’ enough to impose discipline or whether they’re turning their sons into effeminate males rather than real men. Nowhere have I seen the question asked just what does constitute a good male role model.

The suggestion that just because boys are raised in female headed sole parent households they lack male role models is ludicrous in the extreme. While I agree the numbers are small, men do work in primary schools. Or are those men not considered sufficiently ‘male’? Men also work as cub and scout leaders, soccer coaches, police, shopkeepers, bus drivers, cleaners, television presenters, and the myriad other places, including their friends’ fathers, where boys come into contact with people on a daily basis. And men make up the majority of their sporting heroes.

Perhaps the most insulting assumption in all of this is that just because boys live with their mothers they never see their fathers. In the vast majority of cases this is just wrong. Most non-resident fathers are good fathers. They see and care for their kids to the best of their ability. And for those cases where fathers don’t take an interest in their kids,

Are they good role models anyway?

I was in Canberra a few months ago to lobby against the Harris bill. Many overseas jurisdictions where a presumption of joint custody has been imposed have found that it doesn’t work for court ordered cases. In fact many have found worse outcomes for children. Hardly surprising really.


Submissions for the Howard Government’s Inquiry close on August 8. For more info, go to childcustody


The 7:30 Report, Inquiry to look at child custody arrangements, Reporter: Rebecca Baillie.

Family Planning, Howard-style by Michelle Grattan, The Age

One size does not fit all, especially kids by Adele Horin, The Sydney Morning Herald

Degrees of Separation by Gary Tippet, Ian Munro, Phillip Hudson, The Age

Fathers in Law by Catharine Lumby, The Bulletin


Positive Shared Parenting in Children’s Best Interest

Polly: This site has been created by an alliance of groups opposed to the introduction of rebuttable joint residency. As the name ‘positive shared parenting’ suggests, they are by no means against shared parenting – just the presumption in law. Their main concerns with rebuttable joint residency include:

– it privileges the rights of adults over those of children;

– it denies children the right to unique consideration of their needs and wishes, which change over time;

– it is not evidence-based, but is driven by narrow ideological and political interests;

– it will expose abused mothers and children to more danger;

– it will disadvantage parents who have sacrificed careers and education to be a stay-at-home or primary carer;

– it will provide some parents with opportunities to reduce their child support obligation, while not leading to more equitable sharing of core parenting work;

– it ignores evidence that shared residence works for only some families and can be disruptive and distressing for young children in particular; and

– it will increase litigation and prolong instability and uncertainty for parents and children.”

Thanks to Gerry for forwarding on this address to me.

Leave a Reply