Archive for the ‘Shared Parenting’ Category
Why Shared Parenting is Extremely Selfish
A great amount of disinformation is going around stating that those who reject shared parenting for children are “selfish”. In this article there are several key points where this notion is clearly not true.
1. Children don’t really have a place that they can solidly call “home”.
When they are required to fill out a form and asked where they live, there is usually one space for one address on the form. A majority of our society reside in one main address and rarely spend 50% of their time at another. These children must constantly pack their bags and live out of a suit case swapping between homes, never feeling settled.
2. Time with Dad is put above breastfeeding.
Infants are being ordered to go on formula if the mother cannot express milk like a machine that is extremely unnatural. Others are ordered a time limit on how long they are to be breastfed for. The time with the parents is put above the nourishing benefits the baby gains from breastfeeding.
3. It attracts dads seeking to deviate from child support obligations.
Mens groups promote shared parenting for the primary purpose to deviate from their obligations with child support. They might use other terminology in their campaign plans, but reduction of child support remains the end result.
4. Maternal Deprivation.
Not only is maternal deprivation unnatural, but also harmful to children emotionally and psychologically. The long term consequences of maternal deprivation might include the following:
• delinquency,
• reduced intelligence,
• increased aggression,
• depression,
• affectionless psychopathy
5. Its completely Disruptive for the child.
Children cannot maintain regular friendships within their neighbourhood. They are constantly shuffled between houses where one parent might have a different bed time to the other, so added to the problem is midweek sleep disturbance and routine disruption.
6. Provides opportunities for stalking, harassment and violence.
Parents who were ordered not to see the children as a result of past violence seek shared parenting as an opportunity to continue the dominant abuser role. Court stalking has become a developed phenomenon in Family courts, where orders are deliberately used as a control mechanism. Some might see shared parenting as a pathway for full custody as a tool to hold the children ransom in return for the mothers full submission to ongoing violence.
7. They cant keep up with outside school activities.
For children subjected to a rigid shared parenting routine where they are undergoing week by week arrangements, find themselves missing out on activity’s that they were able to maintain prior to divorce. Most activities outside school require children to attend them weekly in order for them to get anything out of them.
For those lucky parents who are not forced to share parenting have the opportunity to negotiate arrangements around the children to avoid these effects. Most parents are forced in these circumstances and do not have the opportunity to negotiate on behalf of the children s needs. Some chose shared parenting because they felt that they had no choice.
Shared Parenting: Isn’t it a little dumb?
A hilarious, but provocative article was written about Australian Family Law reform. As they say, “All truth is made in jest”. Its called, “Law Reform By The Frozen Chook“, a title that surrounds Barry Williams of the Lone Fathers Association who claims that his wife hit him with a frozen chook. It is important to note that in the same breadth Mr William supported homicides committed by men. It highlights how the family law reforms have been made to accommodate myths that have no research to support them. In fact there is no link between the family court and absent fathers unless he has tried to kill the mother or the kid and even in those circumstances, they might get no over-nights or supervised access. To this day, these groups still attribute family violence to not having “shared parenting”.
There are no real laws to protect children and parents from family violence in the family law act, but there are punishments for not being able to substantiate the abuse to the judges requirements of course. Considering the “Pub Law” article, it is sobering to learn that the shared parenting bill was established on the foundation of beer absorbed brain cells. It is after all puzzling to contemplate that if the mother does not do everything the ex wants, she is not complying to shared responsibility and must be punished by relinquishment of the time she spends with the children regardless of the quality of the care she may provide.
Now this doesn’t sound like sharing at all. It sounds like the ownership of women and children even after the relinquishment of divorce. If it was truly about shared parenting then, both genders would be held accountable for their “shared responsibility” and if a parent was violent, then they are clearly not being a responsible parent and thus such “rights” do need to be relinquished.
But somehow those beer absorbed brain cells decided that even if they don’t get the 3 when they try and add 1+1, they believe that if they continue to add it, they will eventually get that answer and every time they get 2 on the calculator, its a “sign” that they are close to finding 3.
Childrens Apartheid
Children post separation with orders of the Australian Family Court are alienated from the rest of the world. They are tied to a culture that has lived on beyond the 19th century, beyond the concerns of the outside world. If it were not a culture of the courts, it would have been torn apart by the public eye and deemed easily as a “cult”. It is everything Australia has been trying to move away from. With a history of violence towards the stolen generations, Australia’s White policy and of course its protectionist past that locked down the borders from every angle. Its not that Australia does not have a history of Human rights atrocities, it is that its leaders have always been good at diverting the subject and refocusing the issues.
Now more than ever, Australian Children of divorced parents live lives no different to the transient instutionalized foster kids. We all know now how unfortunate their experiences were, the wrongs that were done towards them when Kevin Rudd apologized to the grown children who were abused in homes. Apart from a few politicians who have spoken against the current arrangements, no lessons have truly been learned. This generation not only are forced to endure human rights abuses perpetrated against them, they must also fight for this to never happen again. Since the shared parenting bill, children have never been so divided. Its no longer the clashes of subcultures, but the war between the remembered and the forgotten, the divorced and the intact and of course the free from the chained.
Those who have not endured the torment of growing up in a home ridden with violence or haunted by its hands believe that everyone should be together as a family. Even if the child dies as a result or perhaps thrown off a bridge. Even without violence or abuse, the child is forced to live in an institutionalized environment. Regardless of their hopes they may have had training in their local football team or the friends they are use to seeing, they are literally ripped away from their day to day lives and thrown into a situation where they must no matter what live at each parents homes at the court designated times and places. Any hopes to enlist for the student exchange program or return to their parents family for Christmas in another country are quashed after family court. They are in Australian lock down until the age of eighteen. Unless the father decides that he agrees with it, their rights of freedom to roam are violated. Imagine the nightmare simply deciding which address to put down when there is only room for one on every form. Children are living in a suitcase where it becomes pointless to unpack their clothes.
Meanwhile, there are the privileged children, the ones who will benefit later with the global landmarks lurking in their resumes, the ones who are able to attend those extracurricular activities without interruption and go away for holidays that only shared parenting children could dream of.
Children raised to believe that marriage is a union of god and those who do not follow are evil is where the great divide is unrestrained between adults, but drifts into the school yard. The cons that go with an institutionalized lifestyle may also feed into such convictions against them.
Tony Abbott: The Marriage Mafia
The polls have gone up in support of Tony Abbott, a sign of a troubled country. If the Australian Labour Party was not so diluted on the shared parenting laws, Labour would be taking the lead far away from Abbott. So what are Tony Abbotts plans?
Tony Abbott wants to:
In general, Tony Abbott is referred to as a conservative. In reality, what he intends on imposing is authoritarian. Australian human rights will be at an all time low.
Some of the other atrocities Mr Abbott plans are:
Steven Fielding
Stephen fielding doesn’t believe that everyone has the right to be married as basic human rights are set out. He believes that only heterosexual couples should be married. He has even compared gay marriage to incest. In case there are complaints, he is also one of the key ministers that has actively supported internet censorship. Senator Fielding was also a supporter of the shared parenting bill which resulted in thousands of children being exposed to family violence which was ordered by the Australian Family courts giving victims little escape. As for children of todays families having a future at all, Stephen fielding is also a climate change denier.
One shared parenting recipient used it to throw his daughter off the west gate bridge. Attempts to censor this case was foiled as worldwide coverage exposed tot he public that children were being forced by the courts into violent and dangerous situations.
The Australian Shared Parenting Law Debate 