Children's Commissioner Andrew Becroft and the Law Commission seek better asset deals for the custodial parent (often opposed), who they allege ‘loses out', which is a nonsense.

Australian courts can award the custodial parent up to 20 per cent more, which appears unfair and unbalanced because how could relevant changes in circumstances ever be addressed at a later date? Asset splitting won't usually directly affect children, and unequal proposals will engender more acrimony.

Proper child support payments are completely justified, although many men often get a raw deal while others seek to avoid their parental obligations. The current 50/50 split of relationship assets is equitable and the custodial parent can get an order for possession of the family home at least until all children are school age.

A pertinent question on unequal sharing of assets is what happens if the custodial parent forms a new relationship – then someone else may well benefit from this aberration.

The Family Court would probably never apply unequal sharing against women, but would readily hit men. These proceedings are an expensive, time-consuming joke.

This whole exercise looks futile, with the usual inane wool-gathering musings from Mr Becroft. It's right up there with the comical Human Rights Commission stuff.

R Paterson, Matapihi (Abridged).