I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do. What I can do, I should do and what I should do, by the Grace of my Will, I will do.< ?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 [begin rant]

According to a few recent news stories it is stated [and assumed] that women that do not have children make that choice so that they do not burden themselves with another "responsibility".

If raising children were all about responsibility women's group would not oppose the proposals by men's groups, over the last decade, for equal physical and legal custody as well as equal financial responsibility. Family Courts usually point out that they agree that children belong to both parents but then they go on to insist that both parents should be treated differently.

It appears that most Family Court's give their full backing to the CSA to ensure that non-custodial parents (usually fathers) meet their financial responsibilities to their children. Yet they seem to ignore the fact that they [the Family Court] effectively place no obligation on the custodial parent (usually the mother) to share the joys of raising the children via joint custody.

If children belong to both parents why is the father excluded from their lives yet forced to pay their full costs?

When fathers are able to enjoy a real (interactive and strong) role in raising their children, as most women currently enjoy, rather than simply being considered a financial resource for the purpose of raising children, we will begin to see equity in relation to divorce and separation.

 [end rant]