If you are a father the family court will screw you

[banco]

Federal Magistrate Tom Altobelli's letter to two children:

DEAR X and Y,
AFTER your mum and dad separated they could not agree about where you were to live. You were 10 and 6 at the time.

As a judge it was my job to make this decision. I had a lot of help from the lawyer who was representing you, and each of your parents, as well as an expert child psychiatrist.

Even with all of this help it was a hard, sad case to decide. This letter is to try to explain my decision to you, even though you probably won’t read it for many years.

The most important thing I want to tell you is that both your mum and dad love you very much.

They loved you from the day you were born, love you now, and will love you for the rest of their lives. Just because your dad may not have been around for a while, it does not change that he loves you.

At the time I had to decide the case your mum believed in her heart that your dad hurt you.

My job is to look at all the information, and listen very carefully to what everybody says including the experts.

I decided that you had not been hurt by your dad. Even after I told your mum what I decided, I think she still believed in her heart that your dad had hurt you.

This just goes to show that sometimes words do not change a person’s heart.

At the time of the case both of you were saying things, and doing things, that told me you did not like your dad, and did not want to spend time with him.

I don’t think you really meant this. I think maybe you were picking up the things that mum was worried about.

I listened to what you were saying, but in the end the hard decision I had to make was not because of what you were saying or doing.

I told you this was a hard, sad case to decide.

I decided that even though your dad really wanted you to live with him, it was best that you lived with mum, even though this might mean moving away from where you lived at the time.

I knew your mum would look after you really well. I decided not to make your mum let you see your dad, even though your dad wanted this very much. I thought it would make things harder for you if I had done this.

By the time you read this letter I think you will be old enough to make up your own mind. I hope you will think about contacting your dad and getting to know him again.

There are people called counsellors who can help you with how you feel about this, and help you to make it happen.

Please remember that both your mum and dad love you very much, even if they love you in different ways.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/fe...-to-two-children/story-fn6bfkm6-1226386839890

 

[dutchie]

This decision is not surprising.

The Family Court and the CSA (Child Support Authority) have been screwing fathers for decades.

 

[banco]

The nub of his decision seems to be that her allegations of abuse are BS but he's not going to let the father see the kids as the mother would make it such a drama that it would damage the kids. Seems to set up some perverse incentives?

 

[Starcraftmazter]

The discrimination against men in the legal system and society is quite severe indeed. One simple fix is to force equal access and no relocation as a requirement for child support payments, but alas our feminist legal system would not allow that.

Having children is basically a financial death sentence; the only reprieve once done is to move to a country where they can't get you.

 

[Purple XS2]

Just an observation: the worst Family Court settlement I heard of from a direct acquaintance was where ex-hubby got the house, and primary custody of the kids. Within 12 months the kids all left him and went to live with mum (in her rented accommodation), meanwhile ex-hub sold the house at a nice profit thanks very much, and for the next decade paid his token support payments sporadically.

They were both wage earners, she being the higher earner, and she had paid 60%+ of the house's cost while they were together. As a settlement he paid her less than 50% of the house's "value" which was marvellously low at time of calculation, and marvellously improved after he had it for himself.

Basically, she had a misplaced faith in the reasonableness of humanity and an inexperienced lawyer. He was a dog and hired a pack of dogs.

I don't doubt the general bias against men especially in custody matters in the Family Court, but that bias is I think exaggerated by amplified anecdote.

If you are a father, the Family Court may screw you. Not will.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

If you are a father, the Family Court may screw you. Not will.

Sounds like in your example, the only reason it didn't is because he had the money to hire a lot of good lawyers?

 

[waza1960]

I don't doubt the general bias against men especially in custody matters in the Family Court, but that bias is I think exaggerated by amplified anecdote.

If you are a father, the Family Court may screw you. Not will.

So you supply another amplified anecdote for the mothers side which IMO is extremely rare.
There are always exceptions to the rule.....IMO 99% of the Time the FATHER gets srewed by the Family Court/CSA

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

It is too easy for people to have short term dalliances and produce children without any commitment to the children's future.

It is too easy for people to separate.

This leaves the children in a dangerous area.

Many parents are immature and put their own feelings after separation before the children's wellbeing.

Immature, selfish parents who separate put enormous burdens on Children's/Family Services, Health Services and the Judicial System.

This is now an intergenerational phenomenon.

gg

 

[dutchie]

If you are a father, the Family Court may screw you. Not will.

Yes spot on -
chances that Court is in favour of mother => Mean +/- 3 standard deviations

chances that Court is in favour of father => Whats left.

Once the Family Court decides custody, the non custodian (see above) is screwed emotionally & financially for at least till all children leave high school or higher education (can be 20 years or so)

Moral of the story for men: there is a 50% chance (probability of divorce) that if you get married and and have children you will be screwed emotionally and financially for about 20 years.

 

[sails]

I don't think it is just Dads - I seems to me that the higher income earner is the at risk of being screwed. My son was the only income earner when the relationship broke down.

She tried everything to stop him having the kids except for around 80/20 in her favour which also gave her the best child support income from him. He ended up going through the court system at a high cost of tens of thousands of dollars and eventually got a ruling for around 60/40 now and then 50/50 when the youngest starts school. He remained calm and focused at each step.

He took everything very carefully - kept journals of each time he had the kids, kept dockets to prove he had spent money on them including meals out. He also found that by being courteous to child support, they in turn were helpful to him although they can't reduce child support as they have their guidelines. When he was made redundant, they were again very helpful in explaining what they needed.

She has a large percentage of the house money in the bank while he has been reduced to almost nothing with his small portion of the house eaten up in legal fees. However, he gets to see his kids and that is the most important thing to him.

If anyone else is going through this, it can be done, but likely to be a very expensive exercise.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

If anyone else is going through this, it can be done, but likely to be a very expensive exercise.

From the sounds of it, it's worth it as you will drain the other side of the money they don't deserve?

 

[sails]

From the sounds of it, it's worth it as you will drain the other side of the money they don't deserve?

You are actually asking me a question?...lol

No, it doesn't drain the other side as far as I know. Legal expenses are calculated separately even if they are taken from joint funds. It becomes part of the adjustment for settlement. I wasn't fully involved, so that is my understanding.

 

[MrBurns]

It is too easy for people to have short term dalliances and produce children without any commitment to the children's future.
It is too easy for people to separate.
This leaves the children in a dangerous area.
Many parents are immature and put their own feelings after separation before the children's wellbeing.\
Immature, selfish parents who separate put enormous burdens on Children's/Family Services, Health Services and the Judicial System.
This is now an intergenerational phenomenon.
gg

Thats an insightful observance of life as it is.

How to change it ?

Pass the bottle

 

[johenmo]

I don't think it is just Dads - I seems to me that the higher income earner is the at risk of being screwed. .... However, he gets to see his kids and that is the most important thing to him.

Sorry to hear of the above sails. The two points from yr post seem to sum it up. (I haven't been through this so I find it hard to understand how one parent could try so hard to prevent the other from seeing the kids. (incidentally I first typed "side" which made me realise it shouldn't be sides, it should be "parent"). Having said that, all the siblings on both our sides have been divorced or split.

I contrast the comment above about seeing the kids being the most important things with SCMs comment about kids being a "financial death sentence". This shows two very different POV (PsOV??). I relate to yr sons view - the joy & times I have had with my kids over the last 25 years are priceless.

Incidentally, if there is same sex marriage and children are involved, then the family court will be hard pressed to favour the mother over the father.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Thats an insightful observance of life as it is.

How to change it ?

Pass the bottle

It should be about the kids.

Folk who separate and fight over their kids should realise this, or be made realise this.

It is not about the mother or the father.

It is about the poor bloody kids.

gg

 

[johenmo]

It is about the poor bloody kids.gg

+1.

 

[dutchie]

It should be about the kids.

It is about the poor bloody kids.

gg

It is about the kids - the parent who has them the most gets the biggest pay packet from the other.

(The pay packet includes the biggest proportion of the family assets and then ongoing child support).

That is why many mothers try and restrict the fathers to only seeing their kids on every second weekend.

i.e. Its about the kids because that leads to and influences the money!

 

[jersey10]

If marriage is going to remain as a societal norm, maybe pre-nuptial agreements should be mandatory.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

It is about the kids - the parent who has them the most gets the biggest pay packet from the other.

(The pay packet includes the biggest proportion of the family assets and then ongoing child support).

That is why many mothers try and restrict the fathers to only seeing their kids on every second weekend.

i.e. Its about the kids because that leads to and influences the money!

I hear what you are saying, but read what you said.

And frame it from the kids point of view.

Kids usually love both parents and are often alienated by one or the other because of adult stuff.

I still reckon some folk should not have kids and are not mature enough to separate and ensure the well being of their kids when separated.

So many kids get stuffed up by their parents.

A Philip Larkin Poem.

This Be The Verse

They **** you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were ****ed up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself.

gg

 

[dutchie]

I hear what you are saying, but read what you said.


And frame it from the kids point of view.

Kids usually love both parents and are often alienated by one or the other because of adult stuff.

I still reckon some folk should not have kids and are not mature enough to separate and ensure the well being of their kids when separated.

So many kids get stuffed up by their parents.

A Philip Larkin Poem.



gg

To avoid conflict which adversely affects the kids the only option the non custodial parent has (usually the father) is to bow to the system, pay the child support, see his kids every second weekend and hope that he has a better relationship with his kids when they are old enough to decide for themselves. For the majority of fathers this is very hard to take and can lead to suicide in the extreme cases.

In the majority of divorces the kids never win and therefore nor do the parents.