The vast majority of couples, when their marriage falls apart, make sensible arrangements for the ongoing care of their children without any help from a judge in the Family Court. They then do their best to get on with the rest of their lives.
Sadly, some couples, perhaps too many, come to regard their children as possessions with which they can inflict as much pain and insult as possible on their former partners. Some do make mischievous claims about the conduct of the other, with the view to excluding them unfairly from contact with their own children.
When the Shared Parenting laws were introduced by the Howard Government I was of the view that they were a symbolic gesture to assuage the angst of Fathers' groups who were campaigning on an agrument that they were being unfairly dealt with by the courts. What the new laws seemed to do was take away the discretion judges previously had to weigh up all the evidence that was presented to them through competent counsel and make a decision that would protect the best interests of the chils so far as the circumstances permitted.
Shared Parenting was to be the default position and, it was argued, this should eliminate cases of fathers being unfairly deprived of access to their children. Sadly, despite these changes, there has been no reduction in the prevelance of restaining orders needed against angry men to protect their former wives. There has been no let up in the number of men who have injured or killed their own children in a final fling of pay-back to their former wives. The solution these laws offered, just created a whole new set of problems - such as the women ordered by the Family Court not to leave a remote mining town where she had no family or friends because if she went back to her family and friends in the city it would be too hard for her child to have equal access to both his parents.
It is about time, in my view, that we hand back discretion to our judges in the Family Courts so that they can be the external arbiter of what might be in the best interests of the child.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I wrote the following to the OZ and the West Australian - we'll see if either gets published.
ReplyDelete"The greatest single contribution two parents can make to "the best interests of their children" is to love each other and remain commited to being married. When this is not possible and couples end up in the Family Court "the best interests of their children" need to be assessed on a case by case basis, not under some arbitary presumption about the best interests. The Shared Parenting laws were clearly intended to overcome perceived problems with the previous approach, but it seems to me that there has been no significant reduction in the level of frustration with the Court as expressed by men's groups. There has been no significant reduction in the number of Violence Restraining Orders needed to protect women and children from their ramgaging ex-husbands nor has there been any significant reduction in the number of homicides involving estranged couples. The assumptions behind the Shared Parenting Laws seem to be flawed. We need to look elsewhere for the causes of the malaise described above. "
I sent this one the next day and it was published:
ReplyDeleteJ Morrissey (21/10) is guilty of an incredibly sweeping statement in saying "biological fathers are important guardians of children" in the context of arguing that shared parenting is a good idea. Perhaps it is true for most children but try and argue that to children who have been abused by their fathers. The proposition is also insulting to the many step-parents who do a great job caring for and protecting the children of their new partners.
What I object to with the proposition of Shared Parenting, as it now stands, is that judges are constrained by it, and are sometimes required to make decisions that they know are not in the best interests of the child. Such cases represent a very small number of all custody agreements and should be made absolutely on a case by case basis - in the best interests of the child. Look somewhere else for solutions to the anger amongst men on custody issues.