Family Law expert Patrick Parkinson says days of the traditional family are in crisis

    by: Susie O'Brien
    From: Herald Sun
    July 27, 2012


Nuclear family

The number of Australian households with nuclear families is dying.

THE baby bonus, couples who live together and shared parenting laws have been blamed for the demise of the nuclear family.    :-?

Family law expert Patrick Parkinson said the traditional family was in crisis.

Professor Parkinson questioned the payment of the baby bonus to teen mums.

"We are paying 15-year-olds to have babies? It's a sign of society gone mad," said the president of the International Society of Family Law.    :o      

"We have had years of decline of teenage birth rates, and now there is a reverse of this."

Prof Parkinson told the Australian Institute of Family Studies conference yesterday that family law was a "war zone".

He lamented the rise of children born outside of wedlock, saying marriage was important for family stability.

"Now 35 per cent of children are born outside marriage. And 12 per cent of children are now born to mums with no partners - and this number has doubled in the last 20 years," he said.    :(

"We've spent 30 years saying marriage doesn't matter, but the reality is that cohabitation is not as stable as marriage."    :(

Prof Parkinson urged parents to "work through their differences".

One wonders, is it time for Australia to get rid of the baby bonus.    :(

wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 8:20am:

One wonders, is it time for Australia to get rid of the baby bonus.    :(

I never agreed with it in the first place.. I did understand the reason behind it.. but it has gone too far and for too long..


STOP IT and STOP IT NOW.

after paying them to have a child they then tell them to get back to work.asap.. its a joke on us all..at the same time we are paying for childcare and the unreal behaviour when these dysfunctional kids grown up.

I do not believe a child makes a good parent to a child.. very simple really..

its hard enough bringing up kids when you have two.. but with one parent it must be hell most of the time

So you would rather they had no money to feed their kid

SOB

the baby bonus is paid for each new baby ... age has nothing to do with it.

Does the baby bonus encourage some people, to have kids in the first place, that probably shouldn't?.    :(

wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 9:06am:

Does the baby bonus encourage some people, to have kids in the first place, that probably shouldn't?.    :(

I'm not so sure it does ... i know people claim that it does, but I've seen no evidence of this .. I've had 2 babies since the policy started, and it never once entered the equation .. i know the shock jocks would have you believe 15 yr olds are having kids for the bonus, but thats a load of crap .... show me ONE 15 yr old who has done that

Quote:

"We have had years of decline of teenage birth rates, and now there is a reverse of this."

I would like to see the evidence behind this.

Paying The Baby Bonus To 15 Year Old Mums?

The real question is will the Baby Bonus be paid at all & the answer will be no!

And why is having children at a "young" age (ie the prime biological window) a bad thing?
Simply because it robs corporrate australia of a decade or 2 wage-slavery, or is there another reason I haven't considered? 

... wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 11:54am:

And why is having children at a "young" age (ie the prime biological window) a bad thing? Simply because it robs corporrate australia of a decade or 2 wage-slavery, or is there another reason I haven't considered?

A decade or 2? The govt makes them go to work @ 6mo dont they?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 12:37pm:

... wrote on Jul 30th, 2012 at 11:54am: And why is having children at a "young" age (ie the prime biological window) a bad thing? Simply because it robs corporrate australia of a decade or 2 wage-slavery, or is there another reason I haven't considered?  A decade or 2? The govt makes them go to work @ 6mo dont they? SOB

No, the government can't make anyone work, I assume you mean they cut off benefits after a certain peirod, which i'm pretty sure is a few years - enough to see the kids into kindy at least.

But kids take attention away from ones job, costing precious "productivity", even when they are in school.  Someone still has to pick them up from school, cook dinner, take them to sports or other activities etc etc meaning that people won't have 80 hours a week to dedicate to their lame, boring, thankless job.  If the powers that be had their way, all children would be surrendered to state-run indoctrination camps at birth, to leave the parents free to devote their lives to shuffling papers in some superfluous department, to maximise profits for da man. 

... wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 12:46pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 30th, 2012 at 12:37pm: ... wrote on Jul 30th, 2012 at 11:54am: And why is having children at a "young" age (ie the prime biological window) a bad thing? Simply because it robs corporrate australia of a decade or 2 wage-slavery, or is there another reason I haven't considered?  A decade or 2? The govt makes them go to work @ 6mo dont they? SOB No, the government can't make anyone work, I assume you mean they cut off benefits after a certain peirod, which i'm pretty sure is a few years - enough to see the kids into kindy at least. But kids take attention away from ones job, costing precious "productivity", even when they are in school.  Someone still has to pick them up from school, cook dinner, take them to sports or other activities etc etc meaning that people won't have 80 hours a week to dedicate to their lame, boring, thankless job.  If the powers that be had their way, all children would be surrendered to state-run indoctrination camps at birth, to leave the parents free to devote their lives to shuffling papers in some superfluous department, to maximise profits for da man.

Hmmm . . . . I thought they cut them off pretty quick and make them look for work. Put the kids in daycare which costs more than you earn in wages . . .Maybe pansi knows . . . .

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 12:56pm:

.Maybe pansi knows . . . .

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

yeh...maybe.

John Smith wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 9:10am:

wrote on Jul 30th, 2012 at 9:06am: Does the baby bonus encourage some people, to have kids in the first place, that probably shouldn't?.    :( I'm not so sure it does ... i know people claim that it does, but I've seen no evidence of this .. I've had 2 babies since the policy started, and it never once entered the equation .. i know the shock jocks would have you believe 15 yr olds are having kids for the bonus, but thats a load of crap .... show me ONE 15 yr old who has done that

Obviously you don't get out much. Go have a look around Minto.

... wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 11:54am:

And why is having children at a "young" age (ie the prime biological window) a bad thing? Simply because it robs corporrate australia of a decade or 2 wage-slavery, or is there another reason I haven't considered?

I'm pretty sure 15yo is not the prime window for child birth. There is still a significantly higher risk of death in childbirth at that age.

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 1:25pm:

... wrote on Jul 30th, 2012 at 11:54am: And why is having children at a "young" age (ie the prime biological window) a bad thing? Simply because it robs corporrate australia of a decade or 2 wage-slavery, or is there another reason I haven't considered?  I'm pretty sure 15yo is not the prime window for child birth. There is still a significantly higher risk of death in childbirth at that age.

15 is just a number they picked for shock value, it might be on the lower end of ideal, but the best age for child bearing is a lot closer to 15 than it is to 35. 

But big corporate has an uncanny knack for convincing us that their best interests are our best interests.  Thus, nowadays, someone who has a child at the same age our parents did is seen as "irresponsible".  Who needs healthy children when there's profit to be had eh?

Other than starting to develop child bearing hips, what makes you think reaching the age of 15 makes them ideal in terms of raising healthy children?

As long as the baby bonus gets means tested so the "in crowd" on corporate welfare doesn't benefit... :) :)

People who should be excluded from reproductive subsidies through means testing...

Athletes
Anyone with a degree
Porn Stars
Celebrities
Corporate Executives
Anyone who has been a contestant in the Big Brother house
:) :)

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 2:46pm:

Other than starting to develop child bearing hips, what makes you think reaching the age of 15 makes them ideal in terms of raising healthy children?

This will be interesting. I wonder what he will do @ you being a dick and quoting him wrongly and putting words in his mouth? My guess is he will ignore you completely but maybe he will do something else we shall see.

SOB

Are you hoping he will blow up a bus?

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 2:46pm:

Other than starting to develop child bearing hips, what makes you think reaching the age of 15 makes them ideal in terms of raising healthy children?

An interesting way to put it.
You are of course aware of the qualifications I have made (biologically speaking, 15 being a little young to be ideal, but closer than current average)

Quite simply, the quality of eggs (and sperm, to a lesser extent) declines with age.  Is it really a secret that older women have more trouble conceiving/carrying full term and have children with more health issues?


Quote:

Biologically, the best outcomes for pregnancy are seen in women in their late teens and early 20s, though the frequency with which these women are becoming mothers is declining in our community.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/life-choices-for-women-20111006-1lbkv.html#ixzz2251vgUCs

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 2:46pm:

Other than starting to develop child bearing hips, what makes you think reaching the age of 15 makes them ideal in terms of raising healthy children?

Biology?

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 3:01pm:

Are you hoping he will blow up a bus?

Do ppl blow up your bus often? Is that something i should worry about if i get on a bus you are on?

SOB

No, but you defending people tends to be associated with that sort of thing. Should I self censor now in case he gets angry?

Shane B wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 1:16pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 30th, 2012 at 9:10am: wrote on Jul 30th, 2012 at 9:06am: Does the baby bonus encourage some people, to have kids in the first place, that probably shouldn't?.    :( I'm not so sure it does ... i know people claim that it does, but I've seen no evidence of this .. I've had 2 babies since the policy started, and it never once entered the equation .. i know the shock jocks would have you believe 15 yr olds are having kids for the bonus, but thats a load of crap .... show me ONE 15 yr old who has done that Obviously you don't get out much. Go have a look around Minto.

lots of pregnant 15yr olds in Minto before the baby bonus ... you cannot prove the bonus has increased teenage pregnancy

Dont worry - blowing up buses doesn't feature in my plans at the moment.

I should warn you though - I'm going to go see the new batman movie, and if recent media hysteria is to be believed, its a near certainty that I will be inspired to shoot up the movie theater as a result.

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 5:03pm:

No, but you defending people tends to be associated with that sort of thing. Should I self censor now in case he gets angry?

You are doing it again wanker. Who exactly am i "defending"?

SOB

.

... wrote on Jul 30^th, 2012 at 5:26pm:

Dont worry - blowing up buses doesn't feature in my plans at the moment.

How long do you expect it to be off the cards for?