You don't think it's possible that an employer finds out you've lied to him three days a week saying you're dropping the kids off at the pool when in reality you're doing your house up and your boss is being bent over to cater for it? If I were a boss in that situation then I would not only send you packing but I'd make sure you got paid some extra attention from John E Law.
Whenever I get special treatment at my workplace I see it as a bonus, not a requirement. I'm more than happy to have my wonderful job and I do more than my best to keep my job. A good attitude goes a long way and special treatment is something you need to earn.
The type of fraud which you are suggesting attracts gaol time (we are not Americans) is for criminal fraud. That is, there must be a specific prohibition in the Crimes Act, for example like sections 179 and 178AB (in the NSW act), but these relate to obtaining a financial advantage by deception whereas this flexibility does not really confer any financial advantage...so the remedies would lie in a civil suit, certainly dismissal would be justified. Regardless of the legal position at criminal or civil law it simply isn't a good policy to be dishonest. Fundamentally, if you have to lie to make a point, what does that say about your point?
The other aspect that worries me about this thread is that while it is great to have flexibility it is often a privilege and not a right (unless it is in the terms and conditions of your employment contract/award/enterprise agreement etcetera). Privileges need to be earned and it takes some time for that to happen, you cannot expect to get the same privileges as other colleagues who've earned the trust and loyalty of the employer and with it those privileges. I worked with a guy that after 12 months expected everything, like being sent on overseas assignments, he even wanted to move to Thailand and work from there and was upset when they knocked him back. He eventually, took up a posting in the US and negotiated a green card sponsorship as part of the deal and was upset that they imposed something like a 5 year mandatory "stay put" clause or he had to pay back all the relocation and immigration expenses. Seemed reasonable to me and was common practice as far as I can tell.
The third thing that concerns me; is this just born of some feeling that the OP is missing out on something and is therefore just authoring his own unhappiness? If you don't really need it, why do you want it? Just because others have it? Don't let it upset you too much, your taxes are helping to pay for schools (and Gonski!!), day care, pre-schools, family rebates and so on. Is this discrimination, yes, though acceptable as it is also good policy. Why? Without children our nation dies. It is one of the most important functions of a society, self propagation, and raising children is a big part of it. The other important things, you will find also often are subsidised heavily through grants, concessions and public funding of infrastructure.