Interviewer: Trevor, thank you for joining us tonight in our live 60 Minutes online chat room, to discuss an issue that touches so many lives.

Trevor Arthurson: Thanks for having me, I'm really grateful for the opportunity to come along and say how dads feel about the current situation.

Interviewer: Trevor, we will go directly to the questions from our users who have been eagerly awaiting your arrival.

Guest_itsjustme asks: Is the legal system equally fair without being subjectively biased towards one party after the divorce?

Trevor Arthurson: Definitely, with enforcement of consent orders the court is very slack, particularly when mothers refuse access to the children in accordance with the court orders. I've heard of many stories of dads who are denied access even though the court has awarded them access or custody and nothing gets done to enforce those situations.

Guest_Flutters asks: Is the 80/20 formula for custody a legislative measure or a guideline that is followed?

Trevor Arthurson: It's neither a guideline nor a legislative measure. It's something the courts have historically been awarding for more than 30 years. The legislation actually states that there should be reasonable time allowed for both parents, but it's the judges' interpretations and rulings that result in the 80/20 that we see and the government does nothing to rectify that situation.

Guest_mum_of_3 asks: Although it is usually the 80/20 formula towards custody that is followed, it is possible to have a different arrangement if both parents can agree upon it?

Trevor Arthurson: If both parents can agree without court intervention, then that is what the arrangement will be. However, there are cases where amicably agreed-upon cases can be overturned by courts.

Guest_mum_of_3 asks: Isn't the ideal for parents to undergo extensive mediation prior to entering the Family Court system to come to a joint decision as to what's in the best interest of the children involved?

Trevor Arthurson: There is some talk and some action being done where couples must go through mediation. However, negotiations in such mediation can never be considered fair and just while one party comes from a position of power, in other words, if the mother knows that she is going to get 80 percent custody of the children, why would she negotiate any position less than that. What we want to see is a legislated 50/50 starting point for all negotiations.

Guest_daryl04 asks: Okay, my question is as a father, what rights have I got? It would be nice to know.

Trevor Arthurson: Unfortunately, as the dad you don't have anywhere near the rights a mother has. It's something that comes from today's society, where throughout the media we see fathers portrayed negatively in TV shows.

Guest_Rosco asks: Trevor, do you think the major political parties really care about fathers? The recent inquiry was a token gesture, don't you think?

Trevor Arthurson: I agree entirely, it was just a token gesture. There is no doubt that the government and the major political parties use the system to force fathers to subsidise welfare payments to single mothers. The child support money that is paid does not have to be spent on children. There is no legislative requirement for custodial parents to spend child support on the children. There is also evidence to suggest that the amount paid grossly exceeds the cost of raising a child. Therefore, it becomes clear that child support is really spouse support and if this was not paid by the fathers, then the government would have to pay it in welfare. So it would seem that the major political parties don't want to change the current situation as it would mean they would be paying more money out in welfare.

Guest_warfer asks: I cannot understand why a politician hasn't got onto this bandwagon, I would think it would shoot them into the limelight.

Trevor Arthurson: Yes it would, most definitely, but I'm afraid that they are toeing a party line rather than looking at the real issue. Also, it's about time fathers started making their voice heard. It's become clear that writing letters and complaining are not enough. That's where Fathers 4 Justice and the use of direct action will hopefully make some difference.

Guest_restivo46 asks: Should child support payments be tied into access rights?

Trevor Arthurson: In a way, yes they should, in that the time the children spend with their parents does cost money. For example, if my daughter were with me 50 percent of the time, while I continued to pay the same amount of child support I currently pay, I would not be able to afford to have her with me. If the children spend equal time with both parents, then both parents should be equally responsible for the financial responsibilities.

Guest_Matt asks: Unfortunately I missed your program. However, could you tell me what Fathers 4 Justice is all about and how I can get in contact with them? I am from Brisbane.

Trevor Arthurson: Just follow the e-mail link on the 60 Minutes webpage. You can e-mail me directly at that address, I'm in Brisbane as well and I look forward to meeting up with you. We are about raising public awareness by using direct action that is upbeat and humorous, so we have a lot of fun with what we do.

Guest_itsjustme asks: Can appeals be made if one party isn't pleased with the court's ruling?

Trevor Arthurson: Yes, and many parties do appeal, however the cost becomes prohibitive. Quite often one party will have access to legal aid while the other party doesn't and once again that results in an unfair imbalance. I know of some fathers who have spent anything up to a quarter of a million dollars just to get 20 percent time with their children. The Family Court have said in the past that only a small number of custody cases actually go to court and they say that the rest are sorted out amicably. This is complete rubbish. The only reason such a small percentage of cases over custody go to court is because men know that they don't stand a chance of getting a fair deal. So they will just settle for 20 percent out of court. Why pay many hundreds of thousands of dollars to get what you can get for nothing?

Guest_Andy asks: What hope is there when you just don't have the money to go to court?

Trevor Arthurson: Quite simply, there is no hope, you just have to take what the custodial parent demands. It's interesting to note that when a mother assumes custody of the children after separation, it's called assuming custody. When a father tries to assume custody after separation, it's called abduction or kidnapping. Surely it's one or the other and must be applied to both mother and father, regardless of sex.

Guest_Does asks: Can you tell me how shared custody would work if you both don't have exactly the same ideas on how to raise a child?

Trevor Arthurson: What married couples have exactly the same ideas on raising a child anyway? It's a case of balance. Mothers and fathers have different roles in raising children and both mothers and fathers need to recognise that they play different roles in raising their children. What right does one parent have over the other parent to say that the way they are raising the children is wrong, as long as the child benefits from the upbringing. It doesn't matter, that's what counts.

Guest_itsjustme asks: Can court orders be affected if one party lives overseas? Or can some arrangement be made to ensure satisfaction between the parties?

Trevor Arthurson: There are always going to be logistical problems, however, in cases where a 50/50 shared arrangement will work, why shouldn't it? I have become aware of many cases where after separation, a mother who has assumed custody of the children has decided to move thousands of kilometres away from the father. This should never be allowed without the father having some input into the arrangements for custody of the children. If the mother chooses to take the children away from the father, then the mother should be responsible for the cost of transporting the children to the father or the father to the children to enable reasonable time with the children and that time should be agreed upon by both the mother and the father.

Guest_Does asks: So having two sets of rules in two different houses for say a month about would have a good impact on a child's upbringing? Don't you think it would make for one confused kid?

Trevor Arthurson: Both parents need to set the basic ground rules to enable consistency for the children in the two households. If both parents love their children more than they hate each other this shouldn't be a problem. Even within a family that has not broken up, the father and the mother do have different boundaries and different ground rules for the kids. It's a case of balance. If that balance can be struck on a daily basis, then why can't it work on a weekly or fortnightly basis? Children are very adaptable. My daughter knows that she can get a drink of water for herself from the fridge here, whereas at her mother's she will ask for a drink of water and her mother will get it for her.

Guest_troybeez asks: At what age can children decide who they want to live with?

Trevor Arthurson: As far as I'm aware the courts let them have some say when they reach the age of 11. Once they reach the age of 14, they pretty much have full say over where they want to live.

Guest_Flash asks: 50/50 custody will do away with the need for the child support agency, right?

Trevor Arthurson: Well hopefully yes, the child support agency is clearly not the most efficient government institute in the world. Many dads receive many conflicting statements of how much is owed every month. Based on the current calculations, if parents have 50/50 custody and one parent earns more money than the other parent, then that parent must continue to pay the other parent money, which supports the idea that child support is clearly spousal support in disguise. So anyone who says that dads want 50/50 to get out of paying child support, that is complete rubbish, because if I had 50/50, I would still have to pay money to my daughter's mother.

Guest_cleo asks: CSA is about maintaining the lifestyle of the children, so that separation of the parents will not have a negative impact. It is worked out very fairly, I think.

Trevor Arthurson: I know a father whose ex-wife uses the child support money she receives for gambling. When she moved away from the city where the father was living and where the children had established community ties with their friends and school, the children stated that they wanted to stay in the city with their father. The mother told the children that she wouldn't let them stay with their father. The father asked why and the mother responded with "what the hell am I to do for an income?". There is absolutely no requirement for child support to be spent on the children. It is not fair the way it is at the moment and has nothing to do with maintaining the lifestyle of the children.

Guest_becca asks: How can you advocate 50/50 time when some men are not fit to be fathers? When women have left a horrible situation and the court still allows the child to spend more time than is healthy?

Trevor Arthurson: Clearly there are parents that are not fit to be parents, that applies to mothers as well as fathers and if it can be *proved* that this parent is unfit to look after the child, then certainly children should not be required to spend time with that parent.

The whole concept of 50/50 is a starting point. If there is evidence that *proves* that one parent is unfit, then that 50/50 should become something more like 0/100. However, most custody battles are based on false allegations and the Family Court rules on those false allegations rather than substantiated evidence of the parent being unfit.

Guest_David asks: Instead of 50/50, do you think money would be better spent on parent relationships post separation and how they should work together, not against each other, for the kids' benefit?

Trevor Arthurson: Again, if anything other than 50/50 is the starting point of any such arrangement, then there is no way that both parents can enter those arrangements or negotiations on an equal footing. If one party is assured of gaining 80 percent custody, then that party is going to dictate all terms relating to the upbringing of the child. Such a situation is not equitable, Fathers 4 Justice are all about truth, justice and equality in family law.

Guest_lost asks: Schoolteachers are the ones to show just how messed up the lives of children are in 50-50 custody. Until that situation improves we won't believe you, it's not against the father but for the children.

Trevor Arthurson: 50/50 is not going to work perfectly for everyone, nobody says that it will. However, we can't just base our assumptions on how well 50/50 will or will not work, based on anecdotal evidence. What is required is a proper study of a significant sample size and research methods that are valid and reliable. Such studies have been made in the United States that clearly prove children who spend equal time or near-equal time with both parents are substantially better off across a very broad range of social indicators.

Guest_kap693 asks: But that's all you're stating is anecdotal evidence, your ideas are based on what you want and not on what is proven to be best!

Trevor Arthurson: No, that is not the case, a researcher in the United States has published work in one of the American Psychology Association journals, it is a meta-analysis of no less than 96 separate studies into child custody arrangements and that meta-analysis clearly shows that children are better off in a shared custody arrangement. If this research did not have substantial scientific rigour it would not have been peer-review published in a tier one journal.

Guest_single asks: If women were facing an automatic 50/50, then don't you think they'd stay in what could be a harmful situation for the children, rather than risk them being placed with the abusive partner?

Trevor Arthurson: Why should they? If the partner is proved to be harmful to the children, then 50/50 would not apply.

Guest_OneRingRules asks: Are you comfortable with the level of awareness this sharing of parenting time is getting in the media?

Trevor Arthurson: Not at all. Every Australian is in some way affected by this. It's not just the children, it's not just the fathers. It's the grandparents. It's the new partners of the fathers. It's the parents of the new partners of the fathers. Any father out there who has a son could end up in a situation where a woman entraps him and becomes pregnant purely to pick up the $3000 baby payment that the government has announced that will go up to $5000, to then collect all the welfare benefits and 80 percent of their son's income for the next 18 years. This could ruin the life of any young Australian man. Many of these young men don't make it through the financial and emotional ruin that they face. Every parent out there needs to worry about their son's future. If they're trapped in this situation, there is a very real chance that he will take is own life. So every parent in Australia should be concerned for their sons.

Guest_Mum2be asks: How can other people, men and women, become actively involved with the fight for equal rights? Does your group have a website where you can be contacted?

Trevor Arthurson: We do have a website, the Australian website is still under construction, but I will direct you to the UK website. The URL is www.fathers-4-justice.org and the e-mail address to contact me is on the 60 Minutes site: fathers-4-justice@iinet.net.au

Interviewer: Unfortunately we are out of time for tonight. Do you have any last words you would like to share with the many guests who have joined us tonight?

Trevor Arthurson: I would like to thank 60 Minutes for giving dads in Australia a chance to have their say and to all the viewers who watched and heard the father's perspective. Thanks to all the online visitors. I would like to answer everyone's questions. Please feel free to e-mail me at the address on the 60 Minutes site. Fathers 4 Justice are currently recruiting throughout Australia. If you would like more information or to join Fathers 4 Justice, please e-mail me. I look forward to meeting more dads, grandparents and new partners of dads as we fight to get some justice into the family law in Australia.

Interviewer: Once again Trevor, thank you and good night.
This concludes our live chat with Trevor Arthurson, May 23, 2004. Produced by ninemsn.com.au in Sydney, Australia ninemsn.com.au, copyright 2004.