This Blog is an attempt to delve into the phenomenon of the Family Court and how control over the access parents would otherwise have to their children brings out the worst in peoples characters
Lone Fathers Canberra conference speech
posted by TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon @ 1:27 AM
0 comments
Simon Hunt's address at the Canberra Lone Fatehrs Conference 8th and 9th Ausgust 2007.
See speech at http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/video/index.php?page=galleries&type=misc&root=root&id=lfaa2007
My name is Simon Hunt. The reason I am addressing this gathering today is that I believe I have a solution to the appalling damage being wrought on our country's most precious and valuable asset – our innocent children.
There is three areas I’d like to cover
Firstly the current system and its affects on parents and children
Then what I see as the The Solution and how it would operate,
The benefits of the solution
I also want to touch briefly on the debate – and what I see as the distractions as opposed to the issues and who represents what.
The way things are now; one parent can walk out with the children, or get, or threaten to get an intervention order to remove the other parent. Contact between the excluded parent and the children is then decided by the parent that has the children – the "excluding parent". When an intervention order is used (an AVOs), if the defendant is the father they are typically advised to consent to the order, because these cases can be difficult to defend. When a woman presents as fearful and anxious judges often err on the side of granting the intervention orders. It is my understanding that the majority of Intervention Orders used in the context of Family Court litigations are used tactically to limit the father’s assess to his children.
When the issue of custody is brought to the Family Court, almost always by the aggrieved party, they are reluctant to disturb the status quo of existing custody arrangements, other than making Interim Orders for minimal contact for the excluded parent, while they seek expert opinion from practitioners in the form of Family Welfare Reports, psychological assessments, and advice from child protection services, social workers and counsellors. This involves long delays - often a year or more… and serious expense, and during this time the excluded parent can have as little as an hour or two of contact with their children, often supervised by a social worker watching for inappropriate conversation or behaviour. Once again the excluded parent is typically advised to settle on unfavourable terms rather than endure huge expense, delay and distress to all involved (and especially his children). Sadly many fathers forgo meaningful contact with their children to avoid the conflict and damage of litigation. Many children loose contact with their fathers altogether.
Unfortunately courts see things in terms of victims and culprits and so the Family Court is easily persuaded (by barristers) that one parent is the victim and the other the culprit who needs to be marginalised or excluded from his children (its mostly fathers because fathers don’t do victim as well as mothers).
This approach is entirely appropriate for all jurisdictions except the Family Court because a child’s well-being is dependent on maintaining a relationship with both its parents.
I think most of us here are under no illusions about the way barristers will deride a father in Court, and that mothers can also be subjected to derision although this happens less. It’s the way the adversarial process works. It's destructive. And it's against the interest of children to have one of their parents vilified in this way (because it seriously damages their self-esteem and self image)
It's interesting to note that the court still refers to the parents either as the "custodial parent: or "primary care giver" or the "contact parent", despite the resent Family Law reforms, hardly language that's conducive to a shared parenting solution.
The consequence of all this is the child or children loses the love, guidance and a meaningful relationship with one of their parents – usually the father. The long-term damage this causes children is well documented and accepted by all. Single parent children are seriously over represented on indicators of depression, drug addition teen pregnancy, serious crime, academic failure and suicide.
* 63% of youth suicides (Source: U.S. D.H.K.S., Bureau of the Census)
* 70% of juveniles in State Institutions (Source: U.S. Dept. of justice, special Report, Sept 1988)
* 71% of teen pregnancies (U.S .. Dept. of Health and Human Services)
* 71% of High School dropouts (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High schools)
* 75% of children in chemical abuse centres (Source: Rainbows For All God's Children.)
* 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger (Source: Criminal Justice & Behaviour, Vol 14, p- 403-26, 1978)
* 80% of adolescents in psychiatric hospitals (Source: "Family Matters: The Plight of America's Children.' The Christian Century, July1993: 14-21.)
* 85% of youth sitting in prisons (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992).
* 85% of children with behavioural problems (Source: Centre for Disease Control)
* 87% of the juvenile offenders in the Virginia juvenile justice system do not live with both natural parents and 73% are rearrested within three years of their release. (Source: Virginia Joint Legislative and Audit Review Commission)
* 90% of homeless and runaway children (Source: U.S- D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
Increased risk of sexual abuse – its difficult for a single parent to look after their child 24/7. Strangers invariably end up as carers of the child.
Children's well-being and success in life is the most important thing to most people. For parents it is a biological imperative. Children ARE our future. We need to protect them from the conflict and distress of having one of the parents unilaterally removed by the other upon separation or marital breakdown.
The way to do this is to allow the excluded parent to apply for immediate relief by way of an order for restoration of their involvement with their children (a Restoration of Contact order). Such an order would be work in the same way as an intervention order (an AVO). It would allow up to 7 days of contact out of 14, it would be immediately enforceable and it would be subject to prompt adjudication by a court (eg: a District or Magistrates court). Only the court should have the power to make a determination to exclude a parent based on the evidence presented to it. It mustn't be left up to only one of two parents - the one that gets in first.
In instances where there is evidence that one parent is a danger to their own children, the court would be able to prevent, restrict or have contact supervised between that parent and their children. Only then would the matter go to the Family or Federal Magistrates court.
Accusations of partner violence should not be used to deny children time with their other parent when arrangements can be made to avoid interaction between the parents eg: change overs at school (preferably) or other third parties. This avoids conflict and arguments and more intervention orders.
This way the Family Courts (and/or FMC) can focus only on cases where children really are at risk. Where alligations aren't made just to protect a status quo that has been wrongfully established, as is most often the case now. This would lead to reduced risk of bad decisions being made (for example kids being forced to have contact with a father who really is a danger to them).
BENEFITS
The benefits of this solution are numerous and compelling;
Firstly it prevents conflict, distress and emotional trauma of the children and parents otherwise involved in litigation. Nothing causes conflict and distress as much as denying a parent involvement with their children.
In effect it would prevent most custody disputes from starting in the first place – because there is no aggrieved party (no excluded parent) to initiate proceedings.
Importantly it puts into effect Australia's stated obligations as signatories of the UN charter of children's rights to a relationship with both their parents.
The stability and status quo of shared parenting that is the child's experience in an intact marriage, is preserved.
By protecting children's right to association with both their parent we are acting in their best interests.
Crippling child support payments are avoided when fathers are allowed to share in the parenting of their children.
I want to comment briefly on issues that have polarised the debate about Family Reform. It needs to be remembered that there are representatives in this discussion who have vested interests in maintaining a portrayal of frightened mums and angry dads. Those who are ideologically disposed to helping women and hindering men (social workers for example do Gender Studies which denounce men as oppressors of women). These groups usually claim to represent women's interests despite the fact that most women love the men and children in their lives and don't want them hurt (a fact which is bourn out in numerous polls on the issue - 90% support shared parenting ie: women and men). There’s also those who derive their income form custody disputes (lawyers and psychologists incomes are very substantial).
Abuse of women and children is the main argument used to oppose shared parenting, despite the fact that excluding fathers generally causes increased distress and disadvantage for children and mothers.
We are constantly being told “Australian says no to violence against women” as if violence towards men doesn’t matter, despite the statistical evidence that females perpetrate slightly more partner violence than men. This strategy is nothing more than a power play. It has nothing to do with protecting children.
Unfortunately, the extreme exclusionist views of interest groups who oppose the shared parenting solution are often relied on for expert advice - both in the Family Court determinations and by governments in enquiries like this. It is my submission that their views are at odds with community and children and are given undue weight.
I commend the government of it efforts to change what is essentially a mutually exclusive court process into one that protects children from loosing a parent. Once it acts to protect children from the substantially loosing a parent in the first place, it will have succeeded in preventing most custody cases from even getting to court. The FRC will then be more effective because one parent won’t be able to remove the other off their own bat.
It's a mistake to look at Family Law as a gender issue. It a children’s issue. Men's and women's interests mostly are aligned on the issue of shared parenting; this is what the polls illustrate. If there is a dichotomy in this debate its between people on one hand and vested interests on the other.
Accommodating the demands of groups opposed to shared parenting is electorally unpopular and does not secure the female vote. I sincerely believe if this government pledged to protect children from loosing one of their parents it would be a sure fire way of winning the coming election. That’s how strongly people feel about this issue. Men and women of Australia have had enough.
I believe my submission represents a solution that has not been explored. We've all been looking at what the courts can or should do to restore contact after it has been denied, rather than how we can prevent it being denied in the first place. I’d ask every one of you to think about this approach - which is about removing the problem as opposed to fixing the symptoms.
In CLOSING
My question to you today….
Will the government condone one parent unilaterally removing the other parent from a child's life? Or will it ensure that only a court can make such life changing decisions based on evidence presented to it?
Will this government deliver what all of us so desperately want…happy successful children with two parents in their lives.
I call on everybody to write to your local paper and demand that children are protected from the summary removal of one of their parents with an immediately obtainable order – a Restoration of Contact order that works like an AVO (or Intervention Order) with immediate adjudication by a court – so that the status quo of shared parenting is preserved unless there are solid grounds to justify the removal of one parents from children’s lives. Remember whilst the majors city newspapers have shown reluctance to support shared parenting country papers are far more likely to report the concerns of their local communities and are equally monitored by the government,
THE END
posted by TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon @ 1:58 AM
0 comments
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/shakeup-of-family-violence-law/2007/08/12/1186857347087.html
PROPOSED family violence laws would allow authorities to remove offenders from the home and make it easier for victims to stay.
The Family Violence Act, which the Brumby Government hopes to have in place in the first half of next year, would widen the definition of family violence to include psychological and economic abuse.
It would also bar alleged offenders on criminal charges but without a lawyer from directly cross-examining victims. In applications for intervention orders, victims could refuse to be cross-examined by the perpetrators.
The proposals come almost five years after the Government asked the Victorian Law Reform Commission to review laws and procedures related to family violence and 17 months after the commission's final report was tabled in Parliament.
And they come a month after the Government revealed that from next year police ranked sergeant or higher would have powers to immediately remove offenders from the family home.
The Deputy Premier and Attorney-General, Rob Hulls, said the proposed changes would emphasise that family violence was a serious crime and offenders must be held accountable.
Such violence was the leading cause of death and disability for women aged under 45, but until a few years ago physical and emotional abuse at home was not treated seriously, he said.
Mr Hulls hoped the combination of new legislation and police protocols would encourage many more victims to report incidents.
"It is absolutely important that we do everything that we can to encourage women to speak out," he said.
Victoria has two magistrates courts — at Heidelberg and Ballarat — that for two years have conducted pilot programs to deal with the problem. In the past 12 months they ordered 350 men to undergo counselling.
Mr Hulls said the new laws would require extra training of magistrates, prosecutors and police. The Government would set aside $3.7 million over four years for legal aid for alleged offenders, a move designed to ensure they did not cross-examine victims themselves.
Normal rules of evidence would be relaxed to allow the use of hearsay in the court if appropriate, he said. And the chief magistrate could cut off efforts by offenders to harass victims through the court system by declaring the person a vexatious litigant.
posted by TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon @ 3:45 PM
0 comments
