Dissenting Report by Family First
1.1
Family First recognises the unique and
irreplaceable role of mothers and fathers. Family First believes parents have
the most important, and the toughest, job of all – raising children. They have
the primary responsibility for nurturing, raising and educating their children,
who are our nation's future. As a society, we should do everything we can to
support parents in this vital role.
1.2
Focusing on the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005, Family First believes the key
question we must answer is: what is in
the best interests of the child?
That is Family First's top priority; the welfare of children.
Everyone loses from marriage failure
1.3
Some marriages fail: that is a sad and unfortunate
fact of life. Everyone involved in the dissolution of a marriage is affected. It
is crucial that we find the best way of dealing with these situations to
minimise the damage to children and their parents. Children often bear a large part of the cost
of separation:
Children in sole parent families, in general, do less well than
children in shared parenting families.
Empirical evidence clearly indicates that children raised by a divorced
single parent are significantly more likely than average to have problems in
school, run away from home, develop drug dependency, and/or experience other
serious problems.[169]
1.4
The group Fathers4Equality points out that:
Divorced parents report symptoms similar to bereavement, and
both parents experience feelings of loss, previously unrecognised dependency
needs, guilt, anxiety and depression.
Non-resident parents are left with the pervasive sensation of the loss
of their child, while the continued presence of children and a familiar home
setting gives resident parents a greater sense of continuity.[170]
1.5
Not surprisingly, both male and female
non-custodial parents are often greatly distressed by a relationship breakdown
and being separated from their children:
The rate of suicide for adult males has been rising since the
1970s, and each year in Australia
more than 1000 men aged 25-44 take their lives.
Australian research found that more than 70 per cent of male suicides
were associated with a relationship break-up, and men were nine times more
likely to take their lives following a break up than women. Research suggests that non-residential
mothers may face a similarly increased suicide risk, as do non-residential
fathers.[171]
1.6
As the Lone Fathers' Association points out:
Families do not cease to exist on separation. Divorce is between the parents, not between
the parents and their children. The love
between the parents and the children does not come to an end ...[172]
Family law should provide the framework for ongoing
relationships
1.7
Family First believes that family law should
provide the framework for meaningful parent-child relationships as far as is
practicable after the breakdown of a marriage or de-facto relationship. Indeed,
"...the mother, the father and the court have a duty to ensure that each
child maintains contact and involvement with both their mother and their
father."[173]
1.8
Family First does not believe that family law is
working, because it acts against the continuation of meaningful parent-child
relationships.
The current default of
the Family Court is an award of sole custody, in favour of the mother in approximately
70% of cases and of the father in approximately 20% of cases. Sole parenting places
a heavy burden on mothers, deprives children of their dads, and causes terrible
distress to fathers. It can also limit children’s access to their grandparents
in some cases.[174]
1.9
The statistics show how many children have a
non-resident parent:
In Australia,
of the 1.1 million children aged 0-17 years with separated parents in 2003, 84%
of children live with their mothers and have non-resident fathers.[175]
1.10
Family First believes the present operation of
family law that delivers mostly sole residency does not serve the best
interests of children and, in many cases, leads to significant negative impacts
on the relationship between the “non-custodial” parent and their child, as well
as increased stress on the “custodial” parent. While the principle of Shared
Parenting or Joint Guardianship is important and beneficial to the child, Family
First does not believe it goes far enough.
Family First supports a rebuttable presumption of
joint residency (or equal parenting time)
1.11
Family First supports the introduction of a
rebuttable presumption of joint residency for children after a relationship
breakdown, so that both parents can have the maximum meaningful involvement in
their children's life, both in terms of time and their parental responsibilities.
This is essentially the same as a presumption of equal parenting time.
1.12
Family First believes the Committee has dodged
the important issue of equal parenting by referring to the conclusions of an
earlier inquiry, writing that "ultimately, the FCAC [House of
Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs] Report did
not recommend the inclusion of a presumption of equal parenting time in the Act
and the Committee does not intend to revisit this particular issue."[176]
1.13
Joint residency is good for children:
Australian and international research shows that children are
better adjusted in shared parenting situations and regard equal time
arrangements as fairest. Comparisons of 'joint' and 'sole custody' groups in
over 33 studies showed that children in joint legal and physical custody were
better adjusted, whether adjustment was appraised by mothers, fathers, children
or professionals. Maintaining close
relationships with fathers leads to better behavioural and emotional adjustment
among children, and better school achievements.
Many adolescent children living with their mothers also express a
distinct desire to spend more time with their fathers.[177]
1.14
The advantages of joint residency include:
- Both parents being able to more fully participate in their
parenting roles and significant decision-making, under the principle of
“joint guardianship” or “shared parenting”;
- Helping to achieve stronger and more meaningful relationships with
both parents and children, which are vital for children’s wellbeing;
- A better chance of continued relationships between the child and
their grandparents and extended family members.
1.15
One submission highlighted the importance of
extended families:
Children benefit from shared parenting in maintaining contact
with their maternal and paternal grandparents and extended family on both
sides. The role of grandparents is often
critically important in divorced families. Children who have enough time with
each parent are able to spend time with all their grandparents ...[178]
1.16
The value of these relationships should never be
underestimated. They are so important to children’s development, providing a greater
sense of purpose, belonging, and inheritance. Participation in extended family
life improves children’s chances of building resilience.
1.17
It is crucial, therefore, that the child has
contact with their wider family on both sides, unless it can be established
that such contact would cause the child physical, emotional or mental harm.
- Most studies indicate that children themselves favour this
outcome.
- A presumption of joint parenting would give both parents a clear
understanding of their expected responsibilities during any discussion
prior to separation. It would also put each parent on an 'equal footing' at
the commencement of any proceedings concerning residency orders.
1.18
The presumption of Joint Residency could be
rebutted in a number of circumstances:
- One parent may argue to the court that joint residency would not
be in the interests of their child in their particular circumstances,
perhaps due to work or travel commitments;
- The Court may determine it could not be ordered because residing with
one parent could pose a threat to the physical, psychological or emotional
well being of the child.
1.19
Sole custody arrangements have caused much
distress to non-custodial parents (in most cases fathers) in our community.
Because of the way the Family Court follows precedents in determining residency
orders, most parties have strong incentives to pursue sole residency orders,
and in too many cases the father loses.
The benefits of joint residency for children
1.20
The benefits of joint residency for the children
include less psychological problems in later years, far greater academic
achievement, and a reduced likelihood that they will become victims of sexual
abuse.
1.21
One submission stated that:
...the bulk of studies showed that children in joint-custody
arrangements are virtually as well adjusted as those in the intact families,
"probably because joint custody provides the child with an opportunity to
have ongoing contact with both parents."[179]
1.22
As one
example Dr Michael Lamb, Head of the Section of Social and Emotional Development at the
US National Institutes of Health wrote:
"...Parenting
plans that allow children to see their fathers every Wednesday evening and
every other weekend clearly fail to recognise the adverse consequences of
weeklong separations from non-custodial parents...Instead of promoting
parenting plans that marginalize one of the parents, custody evaluators should
promote continued involvement by both parents..."[180]
Conclusion
1.23
The Family
Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005 is the result of a number of parliamentary
inquiries, starting with the House of Representatives Standing Committee on
Family and Community Affairs inquiry which began in June 2003. This Bill is
central to the hopes of many people in the community, particularly parents and
also extended families, who have been damaged by the entrenched views of the
Family Court against equal parenting.
1.24
But Family First is strongly of the view that
this Bill does not go far enough.
1.25
The Bill should
focus on equal parenting "time" rather than equal parenting
"responsibility". That is what
children need most of all – time with their mother and father. And love. Equal
parenting basically means shared residence.
Shared residence doesn't mean
sharing living arrangements, but sharing bringing up the child so the child
will spend some days at mum's house and some days at dad's house each week. If
parents do not see their child and engage with their child, it does not count.
1.26
If a parent has done nothing wrong, they should not
suffer by being excluded from equal time with their children. That is wrong and
unfair.
1.27
The question we must always ask is: what is in
the best interests of the child? That is Family First's top priority; the
welfare of children.
1.28
The
Family Court is the worst place for Australia's children. We know that "in 2000-01
only 2.5% (329) of residence orders were for joint residence."[181] In almost 98 per cent of cases, an
Australian child will lose one of their parents after a Family Court
decision. We are in danger of creating a
stolen generation.
1.29
That is why Family First will be introducing
amendments for rebuttable presumption of equal parenting time, or joint
residency for children, after relationship breakdown. That is the best outcome for children, who
will be far better off if we can ensure families can stay together, even after
a marriage has failed.
Senator
Steve Fielding
Leader of the Family First Party
Family First Senator for Victoria
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page