Child support = kiwi men heading to Australia to avoid child support payments. I can never understand this, if your going to have children then desert them for whatever reason or maybe she deserted you either way your responsible as a father to support your kids. Not run away. I have 3 sons 1 of them lives with his mother the other 2 lived with me but i had no problem with paying child support. I was happy to pay it. Kids grow up last thing you want is a pissed off son. :)

Law before justice? The kids are the most innocent in adult's messups. The alternative to not making protection of their vulnerability a priority principle - is to dump them. And that hardly is acceptable for a society claiming to be civilised. Sure, you have to make sure at court proceedings that one of the parents does not rip opff the other for nothing and although the new family where kids live can afford them, in so far father's rights needs protection. But that'S it, and the father never is completely innocent. It was his decision to get invovled with the woman in question. If she betrayed him, had a lover, got preganent, and the other guy leaves, and nobody being able to finance the kids, then it were the adults messing things up: the woman first, but the "father" second", for he got engaged with a person doing like this. If the relation was less off standard and people are more civilised even in conflict and while separating (such things happen), both people should be able to handle such questions with slightly better sense of responsibility for the kids.

Just saying: "they are not mine so I do not care if they get sunk by the river or not" - that is not an option, no matter who made what mistakes. chuldren are chidlren. somebody has to take care for them. Whether or not oin times of conflict luxury and spending money althouzgh it is not needed is part of that, is something different. But their basic safety has to be secured.

You are responsible for your choice of people with whom you get engaged. And if they cheat you, it has been your choice to get enagged with them nevertheless. Maybe look twice and think three times before sharing lives with a stranger. the high rate of divorces today last but not least comes from the fact that a.) standards and moral rules of living together have been eroded, and b.) too many people make too inadequate, easyminded choices of partners. Some relations are doomed to fail from the very beginning, since both partner'S charcters and ways of life do not match. Film stars are a very good, but not the only example.

Exactly. A much better way to say - and cut short - what I tried to express!

Sorry TarJak, the best interest of the child NEVER outweigh the financial rape of the father.

Paternity Fraud - Hiding behind the skirt of the judicial system.

One has to accept that such cases cannot be judged by a universal standard blueprint, but need to be decided on a case-to-case basis, carefully inclouding all the many different implications here. Whatever it is, the children usually are the most innocent of all factions in family court battles. I personally would not want to be a judge at a family court.

Law and order itself can become a brutal tyranny if not inspired and ennobled by a strong sense of humane justice and protection of the weakest. we are no band of wandering wolves, and who is unlucky gets left behind - we are humans. Much of our societies nevertheless works by the principle of "the stronger one moves on, the weaker gets eaten" - especially in america. But that is no compliment for an intelligent, self-reflective lifeform claiming to be able to reflect about itself.

Consider this: mother unable for whatever a reason to finance children, her having cheated and left her husband, the man not being the biological father. what to do? The man paying for them you say is not justice. the mother in my example can't. Is it just to expect the taxpayer to finance it? Hardly, it is even less just, imo, than having the husband paying. Society had no deciison to engage with his former wife - but he made such a decision - so he ic closer to the case.

Is there a just solution in this situation? no, none i could imagine. However, the kids need to be taken care of, and their future opportunity is not to be sacrificed on the altar of cold-blooded law and order justice, whatever happened between the adults - it is not the children fault, nor have they been asked wether they want to get born or not. Justice or not - you need to reach a solution to protect the children.

And if you accept society to pay for it all nevertheless, you already have created a dangerous precedent that will be abused massively, and will encourage couples to cheat and separate even more carelessly than many already do. It is the same kind of system abuse then that you guys complain about in social parasites sucking social wellfare while not working. Regarding that, many of you are agreeing that it is not acceptable, and you easily exaggerate the ammount to which this happens. but in the example regarding fathers you want to easily accept the same conditions being created that before you have criticised? Is this what you are arguing for?

In case of doubt, community interests rule higher than individual interests, and the interests of the innocent rule over that of those who can afford not to be too concerned.

But as i said earlier: just that the mother abuses children to rip of the father although she does not need it - this and comparable examples have to be prevented by courts and laws as well. But where there are laws, there are those finding ways to abuse these laws. Question is whether this keeps to be an exception to the rule - or becomes the rule.

"Strong and noble is the one whose eyes can bear everything, but whose heart still feels everything."

Skybird, its never the child's fault when situation like this happens. Problem is to few parents care about that. Its about me, myself & I. How many broken families actually work it out, out of courts for the sake of the child? No too many.

Taxpayers shouldn't pay.

But this situation is an issue that women feminist have fought and won. So guys now have to be extra careful. Don't get drunk with a woman you don't know. Don't bang unknown chicks. REALLY know who your going to sleep with. Or your f**k-ed.
Stay in control.

Yes that means don't drop your pickle into the dirt. Keep a firm hand on it. :p

Sorry Pioneer, but in court it does. This is the way family law has been structured in most western countries. Is that right or just? Not in my book, but it is what it is. What you have quoted from my post is simply a statement of fact on the current way family law courts look at the situation, not my personal opinion on the matter.

Completed scores from earlier matches...

Pioneer 3 Australian Family Law Court 0

In the group B matches...

Pioneer 8 Child Support Agency 0

Progress score from the current match

I.R.S 1 Australian Tax Office 0.

Oh yeah, I know what's it like, and if I don't fight for the next father...then who will?

"I have a dream, that one day, all nations will rise up and live out the true meaning of it's creed, that all parents are created equal, regardless of breast size."
- With apologies to MLK.

Amen Kiwi...I'm not even divorced yet and paying $981 for two children...that I do happily..it is not even enough ...I gave both my kids the choice who to live with...my son wants to live with me full time...my daughter only until my wife can pull her head out of her azz..which I haven't the heart to try to explain to my daughter will not be anytime soon. :)...but no matter what I will live in a box before they are in need...

My saga continues...I'll let ya all know how it turns out.

I do like the saying "In the poker game of life women are the Rake" lol...

Not "law before justice" at all. What you're doing is exchanging one sense of justice (the father's) for another (the children).

However, oddly ignored in this discussion is the fact that the children have an actual biological father who should shoulder the burden. Or, why are we assuming that the mother is unable to do so? Sure, it might not be terribly convenient for the mother to pay for everything, but justice is often inconvenient.

There's nothing to state that the children would indeed be victims should the "father" not be held liable for another man's children.

Oh, and I just have to...I'm pretty sure you're not too familiar with how our social services in America works. Sure, the stronger and smarter move on to bigger, better, and more rewarding things. This is how an evolved society allocates limited resources. However, the weaker hardly get "eaten".

Well, i guess you just named reason number 1233 why i have elected not to have children throughout my - so far - 7 years of marriage.

I'll tell you what though... they need to put that mother away and give the dad sole custody if thats the case.