Archive for May, 2011
Nationals MP George Christensen SLAMS malicious Family Violence bill
CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (George Christensen speaks in federal Parliament against this malicious piece of legislation): In addressing the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011, I have come to understand how the citizens of Troy must have felt when they were greeted with the gift of a giant wooden horse, because this bill is not what it appears. It is a Trojan horse. Just like the giant wooden horse, full of Greek warriors, in Greek legend and like an insidious computer virus, full of malicious code, this Trojan bill is loaded with consequences that will undermine some of the most basic human rights for both parents and children, and particularly fathers.
Send a message of support and appreciation to Nationals MP, Mr George Christensen
Family law is a very difficult area to legislate. There is no escaping the fact that every family is different. To create legislation that caters to all circumstances is an unlikely quest. In most circumstances, there are no winners in family law. Family breakdowns are messy. They are hurtful. They are spiteful. They are emotional, irrational and painful. The holy grail of relationship breakdowns, the amicable divorce, is rarer than a kept Labor promise.
It is in this emotionally charged atmosphere that mothers and fathers interact and children are bystanders, often witnessing behaviour by their parents at their very worst. Make no mistake: I do not object to the face-value intentions of some of the amendments in this bill. We cannot question the need to hold a child’s safety in the highest regard when it comes to custody arrangements. But we can question why these amendments are being made.
The current act, introduced by the Howard government in 2006, created the ‘twin pillars’ of parenting provisions. These measures recognised two primary considerations for determining the best interests of the child. The twin pillars were: (a) the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of his or her parents and (b) the need to protect the child from harm or from being exposed to abuse, neglect and/or violence—I repeat: the need to protect the child from harm.
Safety concerns for the child are already in the existing legislation. It is one of two primary considerations—considerations that, yes, are given equal weight. But, in addition, the current act specifically states in section 60CG that a court must ensure that a parenting order:
(a) Is consistent with any family violence order; and
(b) Does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence.
Protection is already provided for in the act.
What this amendment proposes to do is to take a George Orwell approach to ranking considerations. When Orwell’s animals in his classic novel Animal Farm draft their legislation on the barn wall, they affirm that ‘All animals are equal’. The pigs then make an amendment: ‘But some animals are more equal than others’. The pigs, of course, had an ulterior motive and I fear that there is one at play here as well. What these amendments are saying is, ‘Yes, the two considerations are primary, but one is more primary than the other.’ What the bill does in reality is to retain child safety as a primary concern while relegating the child’s parental relationships to a minor concern. It sounds innocent enough, I suppose, but the Trojan horse here is a facade of enhancing child safety. The bill is dressed up as an attempt to protect children, which is a pointless exercise, because child safety is fully ensured in the current act.
What is inside this Trojan horse, the malicious code that will infect society, is an attempt to undermine equal access for both parents. This change would invite the court to ignore the requirement to consider the second pillar—the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents.
The Family Law Practitioners Association of Queensland is concerned about giving greater weight to the second of the primary considerations. In their submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, they said: ‘Such a provision removes the court’s licence to assess in each individual case the degree of risk, its probability or, in the case of family violence, its context in terms of frequency, intensity and recency in the determination of the weight to be given to such risk or harm.’ This bill would mean that any inference of violence, proven or unproven, would have to be taken into consideration, however vexatious the claims may be. The potential danger of this change is apparent when viewed in conjunction with other changes proposed in this bill.
The broadened definition of ‘family violence’ would mean that a wide range of everyday activities could potentially be construed as violence. The broader definition includes as violence such things as repeated derogatory taunts. Under the proposed definition, much of what happens right here in the parliament would be construed as violence. Also included as violence is this little nugget: ‘preventing the family member from making or keeping connections with his or her family, friends, or culture.’ Under this broad definition, a parent could not prevent a young teenager from spending 20 hours a day talking to friends on Facebook, for fear of being accused of family violence.
What happens when a parent acts in a way that a reasonable person would describe as good parenting? What happens when a father says to his 13-year-old daughter, ‘No, you can’t go to Julia’s party because there will be alcohol and no adult supervision’? I will tell you what happens. An upset teenage daughter talks to a vindictive mother, who then claims the daughter is a victim of family violence—and it is their right under this definition. Another child loses the right to have a meaningful relationship with her parent. Under this definition, a parent would be too scared to ground a child as punishment for bad behaviour, for fear of ‘depriving a family member of his or her liberty.’
The sheer magnitude of this definition presents two problems. The most immediate problem is that living an ordinary life can too easily be construed as family violence. Adding fuel to the fire will be the actions of hurt, emotional, and spiteful former partners in stretching the truth. Tripping over the family dog will suddenly become ‘intentionally injuring an animal’. Using a few poorly-chosen words a few times in an argument—which most families have experienced—will constitute family violence as ‘repeated derogatory taunts’. This definition would allow everyday actions to be seized, twisted, exaggerated and used as family violence weapons in the court. What this change does is broaden the definition of family violence so much that the word ‘violence’ loses all real meaning. That would be a tragedy, because it would also water down the perception of family violence.
I believe that violence is violence. Violence is cruel and harmful. It is a serious problem in some families and a serious problem in the wider society. But violence is not ‘grounding’ a child. It is not protecting your child. Being a good parent is not being a violent parent. There is a simple solution to stop such things being interpreted as family violence. That is the ‘reasonable person’ test. Such a test demands that for an action to be deemed as violence it must be an action that requires a person ‘reasonably to fear’ for their personal safety and wellbeing. This is precisely the meaning and interpretation that this legislation strips out of the act.
Is this bill more than it appears at face value? Is it another Trojan horse? I say it is most certainly a Trojan horse.
On face value, the broadened definition of ‘family violence’ creates the illusion of providing greater protection against family violence. Yes, that is a lovely wooden horse but let’s take a look inside. Maybe not, because inside this Trojan is malicious code that gives one parent an arsenal of weapons to be misused in court to deprive the other parent of their right to be a parent.
Earlier in this debate we heard the Minister for the Status of Women tell this parliament that no-one uses claims of family violence in such a way. I have some very bad news for the minister: it actually does happen. It happens every day; and if she is not aware of it happening then she is gravely out of touch with reality. If the minister does not have any contact with her own constituents, perhaps she could spend a few minutes at her laptop doing some research.
Here is the sort of thing that you can find in two minutes: the newspaper headline ‘Ugly feud fought on Facebook’. The article tells about a Family Court hearing late last year. At the end it says:
She had already strung the case out by falsely claiming her ex-husband had been sexually assaulting their children after one judgment went against her. Then she falsely claimed the father’s new wife had been assaulting them. ‘The mother has over the years attempted to manipulate the court system,’ Justice Barry said.
That is just one case that can be found with two minutes of Google research, and yet the minister came into this House and said that making false allegations of family violence and using family violence as a weapon in the courts is a myth. Do some homework, Minister.
The fact that this minister has told a lie to this parliament—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke): The member will withdraw.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: I will withdraw, but I will say that the minister has told an untruth to this parliament. It is clearly not true to say that it is a myth. It is clearly not true to say—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will return to the bill before him.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: I am, because the minister has told this House that it is a myth that family violence is misused by people in the Family Court. The fact is that it is not a myth and you can see that from a bit of research. Abuse of the system is why we have organisations like Lone Fathers , Dads on the Air , Fathers Online, Fathers 4 Equality, Men’s Rights and so on.
If we look closely at these groups, there is a common theme. It is a theme that helps explain why this malicious code is being pushed into the act. These are groups set up by fathers. We can talk all we want about custodial parents and non-custodial parents, but
the truth is that most custodial parents are mothers and most non-custodial parents are fathers.
There are no winners in family law. All parents in family law become losers one way or the other, but some who are bigger losers than others. The current act helped to bring some equality to family law. It created the two pillars, one of which recognised the benefits to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents. These amendments are a backward step. They will strip fathers of their right to be fathers. These amendments will allow abuse of the system that will create another generation of stolen children.
I do not know where the government obtains feedback on the practicalities of family law and family law disputes, but I get my feedback from constituents. I talk to real people who are affected by real situations. I have conversations with fathers who are getting the roughest end of the pineapple. They are grieving fathers who have lost children through the courts. They are devastated and frustrated. They are good men who love their children and want to maintain a relationship with their own flesh and blood—something that should be a basic right.
Some of these men are on the edge. They are driven insane by the lack of justice in the system. They are left in the wilderness, robbed of basic rights and family and, with no support from our legal system, these fathers are driven to despair, driven to the brink of insanity. And if the minister wants to continue her research, she might discover what happens when fathers are placed in a hopeless situation where justice is lost through abuse of the system—which she claims is a myth.
When fathers are driven to insanity, they do insane things. I can, in no way, condone the actions of men who, in the face of losing everything, choose to take everything. They do take their own lives and, very sadly, sometimes in the insanity that they are engulfed in, they take the lives of their children. I note that this is not purely a male response, given that there are numerous examples, including some recent cases, of non-custodial mothers doing the same thing.
Family violence is a terrible thing, but so are the actions of fathers driven to the brink. These amendments will do nothing to stop family violence—we already have good measures in place—but they will drive more fathers to the brink. If these amendments drive fathers to the brink, we should be asking who is at the wheel. Is the Minister for the Status of Women at the wheel? Is the Labor-Greens government at the wheel?
I suspect that there is a strong feminist ideology driving these amendments. It is feminist ideology that has created this malicious code to rob men of their rights to be fathers. It is feminist ideology that has dressed up this malicious code to rob children of their right to have a father in their lives. It is feminist ideology that has dressed up this malicious code to create the illusion of acting to stop family violence.
I note that included with these changes is one that repeals the ‘friendly parent’ provisions from the additional considerations for determining a parenting order. The friendly parent provision encourages amicable behaviour among parents. It fosters friendly relationships with all parties. Most importantly, the friendly parent provision assists a court to meet the first pillar of parenting provisions—the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of its parents. This provision has helped more fathers maintain meaningful relationships with their children and, at the same time, it has discouraged parents from abusing the system.
But justice and maintenance of rights for fathers is an affront to this feminist ideology from this government. What a clever way to rob men and rob fathers of their rights! Surely no-one would vote against amendments aimed at protecting children and preventing family violence. But that is not what these amendments are really about. There is already protection in the current act. The fact is that these amendments actually trivialise what is a very serious matter—that being family violence. The broadened definition of ‘family violence’ waters down the meaning of violence and will, in effect, make family violence more acceptable—precisely the opposite of the purported aim of these amendments.
These amendments should be seen for what they are. They are a Trojan horse, full of malicious code designed to deprive fathers of their rights. The best thing we can do to protect the safety of children and to prevent family violence is to leave this act as it is. (Time expired)
Please show your support to the Nationals MP for Dawson, Mr George Christensen for his brave comments in Parliament against this malicious and hateful piece of legislation that has NOTHING to do with protecting children, and everything to do with gender ideologies.
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/memfeedback.asp?id=485
Report on Family Separation Reveals Surprises
A recent study conducted by the Australian Institute of Family Studies performed in the wake of the 2006 family law reforms has exposed a number of surprising facts about adolescents’ adjustment after parental separation.
The study, which was based on 623 Australian teenagers between the ages of 12 and 18 whose parents had separated between July 2006 and September 2008, was released yesterday by the federal Attorney-General, Robert McClelland.
The study found that boys and girls tend to react differently to parental separation. The study found that boys often have a harder time adjusting to their parent’s separation and are more likely than girls to feel that it would have been better if their parents didn’t separate.
According to Jodie Lodge, a research fellow at the Australian Institute of Family Studies, and the study co-author, boys may experience greater distress than girls because of less maturity and awareness of the problems in the marriage.
The study also found that most adolescents did not want to have a say in which parent they lived with.
”It’s important for young people to have a voice but important to recognise some don’t want to be put in the position of having to choose between parents”, Dr Lodge said.
Any conflict, real or imagined, AND no Shared Parenting, AG says
The release of a report examining conflict between parents after separation, comes as the government today begins debate on new legislation asking the Family Court to consider family violence before granting custody to both parents.
Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the government would use the research to boost its case for reform in the family law system under the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill.
“The bill continues to promote a child’s right to a meaningful relationship with both parents, but with one key difference – it emphasises that the child’s safety must come first in situations where there is conflict,” he said,” even if those safety concerns are only subjective.
The Attorney General claims that where any conflict exists in the event of separation, even if the conflict is not entrenched and is merely the natural tensions that occur during separation, that this will automatically refute or deny the prospect of a shared parenting outcome.
When questioned whether that meant that Shared Parenting would be almost impossible to achieve under such conditions, even for decent fathers who were the subject of false allegations, the Attorney General failed to respond.
The research into the report was carried out in two phases and the results compared what parents reported from the first survey to the second, on average 28 months after separation.
The study found less parents in the second phase (49 per cent compared to 60 per cent in the first phase) were able to discuss custody arrangements, while more parents (11 per cent compared to five per cent in the first phase) relied on the courts to decide upon custody.
Mr McClelland said the results showed law reform was needed to decrease the prevalence of inter-parental conflict, fear and abuse post separation, and that this could only be done by removing the fear of shared parenting from the custodial equation.
Sydney Harbour Bridge protester keeping up his fight
Sydney Harbour Bridge protester Michael Fox says he is meeting his local member Bronwyn Bishop today to continue his campaign to get more support for children from broken families.
Mr Fox, who stopped traffic by staging a sit-in at the top of the bridge on May 17, said he had not seen his children since he was granted bail on charges of climbing the bridge.
“[Politicians] have seen how resilient Australian soldiers are in battle, well, unfortunately for them, this is my battle and I’m not going anywhere,” he said.
“Until they give children a voice, I’m going to be the voice for the children.”
The former soldier from Narrabeen, who said he was a paratrooper who served in East Timor, was also scheduled to meet Rob Stokes, the state MP for Pittwater, next week.
Mr Fox believed government authorities and institutions have failed to protect children from disputes involving their parents when they separate, and hopes an inquiry would help to explore how such processes could be improved.
“The way I look at it, I’m a veteran. And there’s a Veterans Affairs Minister. And us veterans, compared to the number of kids in Australia, are very low in numbers, plus we are adults, we can think for ourselves and vote with our feet. But the kids can’t, they don’t have a voice. And yet there’s no minister for children’s affairs.
“Jenny Macklin – her portfolio is way too big with family services. And the only other one that comes close is Peter Garrett with his education portfolio – early childhood learning and youth. And he isn’t even touching on the problems of health affecting youth.”
He questioned why Prime Minister Julia Gillard weighed into the planking debate last week but missed “the big white elephant in the room”, which he felt were the after-effects of dysfunctional families on suicides and mental health.
Mr Fox, who is a father of three, declined to speak about his own case, calling on the public and the media to “forget my name, but remember my message”.
“I don’t think I will be able to implement any sort of change that will affect my situation. I’m happy to be patient and to go through all the proper procedures.
“It’s the fact that through going through that process, it has made me aware how many people are going through this. I’m not talking about adults, I’m talking about children.”
He said that since his Harbour Bridge protest, he has received hundreds of emails from parents and children telling him about their personal struggles with the law and government institutions.
Mr Fox is due back at the Downing Centre Local Court on June 10.
Glenda Kwek
The Coalition push for changes to ‘flawed’ Family Violence bill
The federal coalition will push for changes to draft legislation providing protection for children within the family law system and tackling family violence.
When the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) bill was introduced to parliament in March, Attorney-General Robert McClelland said it would create a “safer and fairer family law system and prioritise the safety of children”, although many are skeptical that it will achieve anything beyond the appeasement of well-funded womens groups.
“The laws would encourage people to bring forward evidence of family violence and child abuse, and help families, family law professionals and the courts to better identify harmful behaviour through new definitions of family violence and child abuse”, he said.
The bill is the government’s response to three reports into the family law system, although the amendments are largely silent on the overall positive assessment of the current shared parenting laws from the Australian Institute of Family Studies after interviewing over 27,000 separated parents.
Mr McClelland’s opposition counterpart, George Brandis, said the coalition would seek a Senate inquiry into the bill and had concerns about three areas.
Senator Brandis said they were the expansion of the definition of “family violence” and the proposed removal of “friendly parent” provisions from the section of the Family Law Act which governs the court’s discretion in relation to parenting orders.
The coalition also had concerns about the proposed removal of the power of the courts to make cost orders against a person who is found to have deliberately lied to the court in order to try to damage another person.
Fathers groups fear the broadening of the definition of family violence will put them in a situation where they are falsely accused of certain behaviour and lose custody of, or access to, their children, and it will be impossible for them to defend against the allegations, because the legislation would remove the requirement for the abuse to have actually occurred, or for it to be reasonably possible for it to occur. This is because the definition of domestic abuse would largely become subjective, devoid or any merit or fact.
In its submission to a Senate inquiry, Men’s Health Australia says the proposed changes will give an open licence to parents — mostly mothers — who wish to fabricate allegations of violence and abuse as a strategy in family law proceedings.
Men’s Health Australia says the proposed expanded definition of family violence also incorporates much of what is considered normal conflict in separating families as well as the abusive behaviour of ongoing dominance or violence that must be addressed. “It is unrealistic not to expect heightened emotions, and even raised voices and put-downs, in most relationship breakdowns. There needs to be a distinction between this normal behaviour and the abuse of physical assault and emotional terrorism,” it says.
“An AVO [apprehended violence order] is not subject to the test of evidence and should not be accorded weight without investigation by the Family Court into its nature and circumstances.”
But Mr McClelland told AAP that courts would continue to be able to order costs against a party in regard to false statements, including false allegations and false denials, although it would become very unlikely in cases involving false allegations of child abuse.
Meanwhile, many are questioning the ALP’s stomach for even more dissention and controversy, especially given that the majority of Australians continue to support the 2006 Shared Parenting laws.
Given the momentum that has been gathering from within the ALP to dump Robert McLelland, in part due to his mis-handling of the proposed family law reforms, some belief that this legislation will simply not go the distance, if prior examples of poorly thought out legislation is anything to go by.
Morris Iemma, previous Labor Premier in NSW, has privately signaled that he is keen to contest for the seat of Barton, which adjoins his previous Labor held state seat of Lakemba, and many are now positioning for what is expected to be a wholesale cleaning out of many dinosaurs within the Labor camp who have survived so far because of their affiliations, rather than talent, as Labor prepares to re-invigorate itself come the next election, or face a whitewash.
Lesbian Mother to remove Father from child’s birth certificate
By Order of the District Court of New South Wales, we have been required to anonymise the names and identities of the persons involved in this case.
====
A man was so excited about the impending birth of his child 10 years ago he discussed building a home in the Blue Mountains for himself and the lesbian couple who had used his donated sperm to conceive.
The man, who can only be known by court order as BB, said they agreed he should be involved in his daughter’s life but exactly how was never decided.
After answering the couple’s advertisment in a magazine, BB said he provided sperm to the birth mother, paid $5000 for her fertility treatments at an Eastern suburbs clinic and paid for the midwife who managed the home birth of their daughter in 2001.
Ten years on, after a tumultuous relationship among the three parents, the woman’s ex-partner, AA, is taking the NSW Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages and BB to court to have his name removed from the girl’s birth certificate.
It is the first case of its kind since the introduction of a retrospective law in 2008 giving lesbian couples equal parenting responsibilities or legal status.
Of 94,354 birth registrations last year, 117 were for children born to same-sex parents.
BB said he had gone through “10 years of hell” and spent $50,000 on legal fees.
He has seen the girl for five hours a fortnight since she was one. He paid $150 a week support for her first year, though he was not obliged to, and paid one-third of her school fees for two years.
Last year he had allowed the birth mother, listed on the birth certificate as a funeral celebrant, to stay at his home for three months when she was unable to pay rent at her own home, he said.
The girl is the major beneficiary in his will and she calls his mother “Nan.”
He is devastated that he may be taken off the birth certificate.
“It’s a very depressing situation … the birth certificate is more than a bit of paper; it tells people who you are,” he said.
“No one seems to care about fathers these days.”
He said the three had been “all wrapped up in the moment of having the child” and were on good terms until the birth.
“I was going to build this great big house and live together … Everything was fine until the baby was born … they used me and they took my money and now they’ve got what they want, they really just didn’t want to know me.”
Both women have declined to comment.
A sperm donor does not have legal parenting responsibilities – and thus cannot make decisions about the child’s education or medical needs – even if a court grants visitation rights and he is on the birth certificate.
It is not possible under NSW law to have three parents with legal responsibilities. Had BB had sexual intercourse with the woman or married her, he would have gained that legal status.
Partners of lesbian mothers gained that right automatically with the introduction of the Miscellaneous Acts Amendment (Same Sex Relationships) Act 2008.
A family law expert, Paul Boers, said there was still confusion among gay and lesbian parents.
“I get lesbian couples concerned about whether the sperm donor might come back and seek parenting orders [to spend time with the child]. I tell them that he’s got to get over the hurdle of convincing a court that he’s concerned with the care, welfare and development of the child and he’s got an established relationship with the child.”
The case is set down for hearing on August 2.
investigations@smh.com.au
Womens groups push to support new bill (to protect children): Yeah right!
Editor: Before accepting much of the article below at face value, you may want to review the litany of anti-male articles written by this particular journalist.
You would in fact be forgiven for thinking that this was the work of a malicious divorced mother with an axe to grind against her ex-husband, rather than an objective journalist wishing to simply portray the facts on family law reform. Perhaps the above description hits closer to home than Adele Horin is willing to admit, (;-), but this obsessive shrill against shared parenting, which Adele would make you believe equates to sexual abuse of children, is nothing more than a disgraceful attempt to ensure that women maintain sole custody rights of their children, and as a result ‘control’ of their ex-husband, regardless of the genuine needs of children.
Do not be fooled into thinking that this is about protecting children from child abuse. Given that almost 80% of all child abuse happens in single mother households, and the overwhelming perpetrators of child abuse being mothers themselves, then removing the transparency of shared parenting is hardly a solution now, is it?
Whether the likes of Adele Horin will admit it or not, this battle is not about children, it is about women’s rights, above and beyond the equal rights of men, or the best interests of children.
If we were to be fair-dinkum about protecting children, then we would take head of figures from the Institute of Criminology which lists sole custody of the highest risk factor for child abuse in Australia.
===============
Changes to child custody laws will be put under the spotlight today, writes Adele Horin.
A WOMAN whose ex-husband was jailed for sexually abusing her daughter is resisting Family Court orders to allow him contact visits with their son.
The man was sentenced to three years’ jail and served 18 months for the aggravated indecent assault of a minor – his then 13-year-old stepdaughter. He was freed on a good behaviour bond and has been granted supervised access visits with the younger child. The visits, which were supposed to start last October, were intended to lead to unsupervised access after seven weeks.
Now the mother is fearful she might end up in jail because she is in contravention of court orders. ”The day he molested my daughter he lost his rights as a parent,” she said. ”My son says he’s scared of him and I won’t make him go.”
The executive officer of the NSW Women’s Refuge Movement, Cat Gander, says the case highlights the bind women are in under the Family Law Act.
”State child protection authorities insist women protect their children from danger but Family Court orders insist women facilitate access.”
A rally today outside Federal Parliament will be the first step in a campaign to ensure passage of a new family law bill that seeks to give greater protection to children in access and custody disputes. More than 170 agencies, including Lifeline, the YWCA, the Benevolent Society and Headspace, the youth mental health agency, have formed an unprecedented alliance to push for even stronger protections for children in the proposed legislation.
After several government-commissioned studies into family violence that showed children were insufficiently protected under the 2006 Family Law Act, the federal government proposed a new family violence bill. A public inquiry starts on June 9 in Canberra.
Some men’s groups claim the government’s proposed changes to family law may weaken shared parental responsibility provisions. However, Kylie Temple, project co-ordinator for a mid-north coast domestic violence service, said the 2006 law, in emphasising children’s rights to a relationship with both parents, had compromised children’s safety: ”If this mother complies with the federal court order and leaves her child with a convicted sex offender, under state law I am mandated to report the child to the child welfare department for being at significant risk.”
The new alliance wants the committee to take up the recommendations of the former family court judge Richard Chisholm to drop the presumption of equal shared parenting responsibility and the obligation to consider equal time in favour of treating all cases that come before the court on their merits.
The government has proposed more modest changes that will give greater weight to the protection of children above the benefit of children having a meaningful relationship with both parents where family violence was a concern. As well, it proposes to delete the ”friendly” parent provision which obliged judges to have regard to whether a parent encouraged the child’s relationship with the other parent.
Ms Gander said that at this stage it was unclear whether the proposed changes would have a smooth passage through Parliament.
Adele Horin
Labor’s Flawed Family Law Reform – where only men wear black hats
Editor: The great irony is that McLelland has used the Darcy Freeman tragedy to provide the basis for the effective dismantling of Australia’s Shared Parenting legislation, and yet this legislation never applied in the Freeman case, and if it had, this tragedy would very likely not have occured.
================
COUPLES feuding over the custody of their children after separation often have reached the lowest point in their lives. For some, the legal system seems to block access to their offspring and becomes a natural target for their pain.
Fathers groups have a political target as well this year because the agonising process of resolution could be made longer and more hazardous, especially for men.
The Gillard government is introducing sweeping changes to the Family Law Act after three inquiries found the act does not give sufficient protection to victims of family violence. Providing it could mean longer proceedings.
But the controversial changes look likely to get the support of both sides of politics.
If passed, family violence will be defined as not only violent but also threatening or other behaviour that “coerces or controls” and causes children or former partners to be fearful. Examples listed are assault, stalking, repeated derogatory taunts, unreasonably denying the person financial autonomy, maiming pets and intentionally damaging or destroying property. The bill also changes the definition of child abuse to include psychological damage caused by exposure to family violence.
While there is community consensus that domestic violence should not be tolerated at any level, there is a philosophical and political debate about how far violence can be defined before it becomes open to manipulation and legal abuse by parties using the court system.
Fathers groups fear the broadening of the definition will put them in a situation where they are falsely accused of certain behaviour and lose custody of, or access to, their children.
In its submission to a Senate inquiry, Men’s Health Australia says the proposed changes will give an open licence to parents — mostly mothers — who wish to fabricate allegations of violence and abuse as a strategy in family law proceedings.
Controversially, it says the proposed expanded definition of family violence incorporates much of what is considered normal conflict in separating families as well as the abusive behaviour of ongoing dominance or violence that must be addressed. “It is unrealistic not to expect heightened emotions, and even raised voices and put-downs, in most relationship breakdowns. There needs to be a distinction between this normal behaviour and the abuse of physical assault and emotional terrorism,” it says.
“An AVO [apprehended violence order] is not subject to the test of evidence and should not be accorded weight without investigation by the Family Court into its nature and circumstances.”
Family Court Chief Justice Diana Bryant argues many cases close to completion could be prolonged, putting children at extra risk by log-jamming the courts and increasing family stress.
The danger in the government’s bill is that the laws can be applied to cases that have already largely been heard, Bryant argues in a submission to the Senate committee examining the legislation.
The retrospectivity means cases not finalised could be presented with new evidence, causing a delay in the delivery of judgments.
The present era of reform began in 2006 when the Howard government took the unprecedented step of overhauling the entire family law system. The centrepiece was a requirement that shared parenting, allowing children the right to continue to know both parents, be the main goal for the Family Law Court.
The move received bipartisan support from Labor despite strong internal resistance from feminist elements in the party who were concerned it would deprive mothers of rights and could put children at risk. Five years on, the Gillard government — after reports criticising the new shared-care system — has revealed its hand and unveiled its own version of family law reform.
The Labor government’s reforms wind back what some see as excesses in the Howard reforms. Tony Abbott’s Coalition initially came out condemning the rollback, but its legal spokesman George Brandis has since suggested the new laws may win his party’s support.
Under Labor Attorney-General Robert McClelland, the legislation before federal parliament places greater weight on child safety, meeting a key criticism of the Howard reforms.
It will make it easier for parents to produce evidence of violence when parents are in dispute over child-contact arrangements.
McClelland tells Inquirer the new Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill provides an overarching definition of family violence and contains a list of examples of harmful behaviour that would be captured by the definition.
Importantly, he says, the definition avoids an element of intent as “this would exclude some behaviour that has a powerful and ongoing coercive and controlling effect. A requirement to prove intent would also discourage victims of family violence to disclose violent behaviour.”
The government believes the Howard changes made it hard for women to make allegations of domestic violence in custody disputes because they could end up with costs awarded against them and increase the chances of shared care being ordered. But the new legislation has attracted the ire of shared parenting supporters, such as groups representing fathers, who say the changes will encourage unproven accusations to gain sole custody.
The government, which originally put out a draft bill in November last year, has since made crucial concessions before unveiling its final bill earlier this year. Sensing a backlash from fathers groups, the government has backed away from more radical plans to remove the shared parenting provision.
Under the proposed new laws, the Family Court will still have to consider whether each of the parents has encouraged, rather than been hostile to, a close and continuing relationship between their child and former partner when awarding custody.
But the government has refused to back away from its dramatically expanded definition of what constitutes violence and it is here that a divisive battle lies.
The government has gone with a formulation used by the Australian and NSW Law Reform commissions.
One of the bill’s critics is Sydney Law School family law professor Patrick Parkinson, architect of the Howard government’s original family law changes, who argues the new broad definition of violence in the bill is flawed and could be abused. While the bill has been pared back since November, Parkinson worries the government has still not got the balance right. He supports the thrust of the Labor legislation in his submission to the Senate’s review of the laws but says the opening words of the definition simply require that the behaviour complained of “coerces or controls” a family member. He says this is flawed because it does not say the person accused of such behaviour needs to have the intention of coercing or controlling.
“It would certainly be problematic if someone could be held to have engaged in violent behaviour without intending to do so because his or her former partner felt coerced or controlled.”
Parkinson also objects to the requirement for the court to consider making family violence orders, arguing these are seen by many as a “weapon in the war between parents”. “There is now a very widespread view in the community that some family violence orders are sought for tactical or collateral reasons to do with family law disputes,” he says.
Parkinson urges the removal of another section of the bill defining financial or economic abuse, arguing it raises contestable issues about finances in relationships.
“In my view it is preferable if the legislation does not open up endless arguments by self-represented litigants on such issues,” he says.
Parkinson tells Inquirer it is also important the resources of the court are focused on the women and children most at risk of serious harm.
“The broader the definition, the more people come within it, and the more scope there is for arguments in court about various kinds of bad behaviour that are reprehensible but don’t represent serious future risks to women or children,” he says.
“Domestic violence is a very serious problem and there is evidence of a history of violence in a substantial proportion of the cases that come before the courts.
“So the problem is how to focus the already stretched resources of the courts on the cases where there is the greatest risk.”
Relationships Australia, one of the peak national family counselling groups, has come out strongly in support of the new expanded definition of violence. Relationships Australia national executive officer Alison Brook says the government should go even further in defining violence.
“We recommend that threats of physical harm to family members, including threats of self-harm (as a controlling behaviour) be included,” Relationships Australia says in a Senate submission.
One of the lobby groups fighting the changes — the Joint Parenting Association — argues the 2009 death of four-year-old Darcey Freeman at the hands of her father is behind the changes.
Association spokesman Yuri Joakimidis says: “A mere allegation that the behaviour caused a family member to ‘be fearful’ would be enough to establish family violence. This is not the usual legal test or standard of proof and such an allegation would be almost impossible to refute.
“Additionally, the proposal fails to distinguish between truly menacing verbal behaviour and transient verbal expressions of anger and put-downs that flow both ways in most relationship breakdowns.”
But while concerns over the expanded definition are widespread among fathers groups, the Family Law Council wants to broaden further the definition of abuse. In its submission to the Senate the council says it is concerned about the use of the word “serious” in the proposed definition of child abuse, as this could imply that some child abuse and neglect is not serious.
The Attorney-General says the broadened definition is widely endorsed by the community and will protect children.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/breaking-up-its-not-me-it-is-you/story-e6frgd0x-1226050956301
AG Robert McLelland – on the nose with the ALP and ready to be dumped.
Editor: The below report comes as no suprise to Fathers4Equality as we have previously reported that Robert Mclelland was on the those with many in Caucus for his extreme anti-male views, which have culminated in the widely criticised proposed amendments to the Family Law act, currently being reviewed by the Senate.
In fact the amount of angst against this man by many in the Labor party cannot be over-stated, however politics being what it is means that there still may be a chance that he gets pre-selected.
Fathers4Equality have in fact had a number of discussions with other fathers groups on our possible participation in efforts to un-seat Robert McLelland, or facilitate a strong swing against the man, if he somehow manages to re-contest the following election, by a grassroots effort to inform the electorate of this man’s malicious anti-male and anti-children beliefs.
In that event, Fathers4Equality is considering putting people power to work in the electorate of Barton by distributing brochures and by manning polling stations and distributing how to vote cards, ensuring the public gets an opportunity to be informed about how malicious and out-of-touch this politician is, espcially when it comes to his obsession with stigmatising separated and divorced males, and in robbing children of a meaningful relationship with their fathers.
This man’s offensive belief that separated and divorced men are violent by nature, is offensive to anyone who believes in equality amongst the sexes, and this may be an opportune time to ask anyone who would have an interest in participating in this effort to un-seat this hate-monger, to please get in contact with us..
====
LABOR is poised to lose a cabinet minister at the next federal election, with Attorney-General Robert McClelland failing to win the support of preselectors in his blue-ribbon Sydney electorate.
The Sunday Age has learnt Mr McClelland was privately told by factional organisers in his seat of Barton, which spans the suburbs of Brighton-Le-Sands, Kogarah and Arncliffe, that they will not support his bid for another term.
They have urged the long-term Labor frontbencher to ”go quietly” in a bid to head off a messy preselection brawl.
Mr McClelland’s prospects in his seat began to flag when it was revealed that Australian Workers Union boss Paul Howes had expressed interest in standing for the next federal election, with his sights set on Barton.
The self-titled ”faceless man” – a key player in the downfall of former prime minister Kevin Rudd and installation of Prime Minister Julia Gillard – has since walked away from federal politics, vowing to consolidate his powerful union position by renominating for the federal secretary job.
But sources close to Mr Howes said his about-face was due to a widely held view in the national executive that he had been tainted in the eyes of voters over the Rudd coup.
”Paul just needs some distance and time from the mess the factions left after beheading Rudd … but I will eat my hat if he is not a player at the election after next,” a Labor source said.
Despite Mr Howes’s decision, preselectors are understood to favour introducing new blood into Barton and have begun looking for candidates.
When asked by The Sunday Age about the brewing stoush, Mr McClelland defended his position and said he was proud to represent his electorate and hold a cabinet position. ”I am confident that I retain the local support necessary to continue representing my constituents,” he said.
A factional branch member said Mr McClelland was viewed as the ”weak” link in the Labor cabinet – an accusation denied by the Attorney-General’s supporters in the government. A source said: ”This is nothing more than factional heavies moving towards their own misguided ambitions to install one of their own.”
23 Women charged with Child Porn
TWENTY-THREE women from across Sweden have been charged with involvement in what investigators call a unique child pornography case because most of the suspects are female.
A 43-year old man today was charged with having provided them with 510 films and photos of children being exploited in “especially ruthless” manner.
The women, aged between 38 and 70, allegedly met the man online and received and accepted the files he sent them. Seven of them have confessed. Some of them are also suspected of having spread the material and two of producing child pornographic photographs themselves.
Detective Inspector Bjorn Sellstrom says it’s the first time, in both Sweden and the world, that so many women have been involved in such a case.
