Family Law Expert Dispels Myths about Shared Parenting laws
Life Insurance Quotes - Get Life Insurance Now, Fast Efficient and Reliable. Protect your children's tomorrow by preparing for their interests today. Life Insurance Quotes Australia
Preface: With all the media focus on the feigned concerns by certain self-interest groups on the risks to children’s safety of the current family law act (equal shared parental responsibility 2006), along with the absurd claim that fathers rights are being placed ahead of the best interests of the child, it is refreshing to find an honest appraisal of the current law from a family law expert.
I should recap that the the current family law act (equal shared parental responsibility 2006) was put in place to encourage greater contact between separated fathers and children, given the overwhelming evidence that children suffer greatly when their fathers are forcibly removed from their lives.
As such it is a great shame that there has been such a concerted campaign by women’s groups and the Gillard government to repeal this law, under the deceptive guise of protective family violence measures, with a new bill currently in Parliament which will effectively presume that separated fathers are guilty of child abuse, and the standard of proof to dispute this presumption is set so high that even conclusive evidence will not be sufficient to overcome this presumption.
The end result will be that the new bill, which looks to almost certainly become law within a matter of weeks because of the support of the Greens in the Senate, will now re-establish the very thing all credible experts believe is destructive to the welfare of Australian children, that being the epidemic of fatherlessness.
This family law expert explains that the the current family law act (shared parental responsibility 2006) is designed to protect the rights of children, not of parents. This lawyer also explains that the Judge or Judicial Officer is under no obligation to provide any shared care at all, if they believe that such an arrangement is not in the child’s best interests. This explanation clearly contradicts the distortions by many women’s groups, journalists and the Julia Gillard government, who have repeatedly claimed that children have been forced into shared parenting contact with violent and sexually abusive fathers. This is a complete fabrication!
You will also notice the explanation of the comprehensive measures taken in the current family law act (equal shared parental responsibility 2006) to protect the health and safety of children, and the decision is ultimately up to the Judge or Judicial officer who has the final say on whether he or she believe the child should have shared parental contact, limited shared parental contact, or sole custody only.
This raises the question as to why the likes of Attorney General Robert McClelland and Prime Minister Julia Gillard are tinkering with a law designed to protect the rights of children, and replacing it with a proposed law (the deceptively labelled Family Violence bill), which will effectively force children into sole custody arrangements with their mothers, regardless of the quality of care that the father can provide, or the best interests of the child.
When you contrast the facts with the fiction, then we can hang our heads in shame because the Gillard government that we as Australians have voted in (only barely of course and with the support of the pseudo-Independants like Tony Windsor and Rob Oakshott), has again put the interests of minority lobby groups ahead of the best interests of Australians, and in this case, well ahead of the best interests of Australian children.
=========================================================================================================
Family Law Expert Averil Foster Talks about Equal shared parental responsibility.
The Family Law Act was amended in 2006 to make provision for a concept called “Equal Shared Parental Responsibility”. Many separating parents believe that this amendment to the Act means that children with separated parents should be, by law, spending equal time with each of their parents. This is a common family law myth.
The concept of equal shared parental responsibility is about decision-making in relation to long term issues in a child’s life, such as where they will live, what religion they will practice, what medical treatment they may or may not receive, what name they will be known by and what schools they will go to.
The Court will not make an order for equal shared parental responsibility if it is satisfied that this is not a child’s best interests.
The Family Law Act provides that if the Court is satisfied that parents should have equal shared parental responsibility, the Court must then give consideration to:
a. whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the child’s best interests; and
b. whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable,
if the answer to both of these questions is yes, the Court must consider making an order for the child to spend equal time with the parents.
If the answer to one or both of these questions is no, the Court must consider whether the child spending ’substantial and significant time’ with the non-resident parent is
a) in the child’s best interests; and
b) is reasonably practicable.
Similarly, if the answer to both of these questions is yes, then the Court must consider making an order for the child to spend substantial and significant time with the non-resident parent.
The important thing to remember about the concepts of equal time and substantial and significant time is that even if all of the boxes are ticked, there is no obligation on the Court to make an order for either. The Court is simply required to consider whether it is appropriate to make such Orders. In considering whether it is appropriate to make such Orders, the overriding consideration for the Court is whether proposed parenting arrangements are in a child’s best interests.
Visit the website of Farrar, Gesini & Dunn
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Has anyone looked to the http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda1984209/
SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT 1984; to see if the Shared Parenting Laws are supportive of the Convention or Covenant in the Australian Treaty Series?
Like:
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights done at New York on 16 December 1966 ([1980] ATS 23);
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights done at New York on 16 December 1966 ([1976] ATS 5);
The Convention on the Rights of the Child done at New York on 20 November 1989 ([1991] ATS 4);
The text of a Convention or Covenant in the Australian Treaty Series was accessible through the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (www.austlii.edu.au) .
[Reply]
Australia’s Shared Parenting laws have FAILED to increase Shared Parenting arrangements – new study
http://www.f4e.com.au/blog/2011/02/01/australias-shared-parenting-laws-have-failed-to-increase-shared-parenting-arrangements-new-study/
[Reply]
Steve Reply:
August 1st, 2011 at 10:31 pm
If we can get the numbers behind us we can through out the government.
Only then will they stand up and pay attention.
Make the changes kids and Dad’s need.
Join us and sent this to your mates …
http://www.fathersunionaustralia.com/
[Reply]
Danwashere Reply:
August 17th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Throwing out the government wont change a thing the void will be filled by the same scum bags under a different banner. It is the law that needs to be changed as all parties use and abuse the law as it stands. Transparent true equality not the machine building feminism or a male equivalent; I propose no gender alignment, Humanism is it time?
[Reply]
dave aldridge. Reply:
August 20th, 2011 at 2:29 am
Exactly right in many ways Danwashere. I fought for 3 years to rescue my own daughter. Despite a mountain of PROVEN evidence before the courts of abuse and neglect and breaches of the courts own orders, all the court ever listened to was the recommendations of the man hating social worker on my case. This woman i believe HAD BEEN abused by a former partner, but she should never have been allowed to carry out her personal agendas on well meaning fathers. Luckily a freind forwarned me of what she was like so i was well prepared but it was hard. How would you as a father feel if a social worker told you quite literally that your daughter didn’t have the rights of a dog [believe it or not], or when you told her how your 5/6/7 yo daughter was being left alone at night [often ALL night] night after night, and all she said was that you wre trying to run the ex’s home life, no regard as to the danger such behaviour might place your child in. Fair dinkum it was just so awful. I called the police out one night to the ex’s house at 4.00am where my then 7yo daughter had been abandoned alone all night for the umpteenth time, in clear breach of family court orders and the child protection act. After ascertaining that my daughter was on her own and didn’t know where her mother was [she was at a local hotel] all they did with LEADING THE STATE TO A SAFER COMMUNITY proudly emblazoned on their vehicle, was to order me from the property and just drove off, in clear breach of the mandatory reporting requirements of the child protection act. On another occasion i rang the Families SA child abuse hotline, again at about 4.00am. After talking to them they actually got the police to remove the ex from the hotel and escort her from the hotel back home to care for our daughter. What was the result of all this???. A week after this happened i got a letter from Families SA saying they were taking my daughter off their “at risk” list. Unbelievable. I must say i had been quite busy. I had a great ally in my local mp [no i am not joking] and more particularly the decent family woman working in his office. She encouraged me to fight, vetted many of my sometimes impetuous letters and altogether did her best for me. Even paying for the stamps for my letters at a time when i scratching for every cent to finance my court battle. And as i recall there was no impending election in the offing at that time. I was able to persuade the minister for human services to remove this man hating social worker from my case. Her replacement [at least a decent family woman with no axe to grind], while not completely on my side, at least gave me a fair hearing. This along with the fact that only a week or so later my daughter voted with her feet late one cold rainy night, at least persuaded the social worker to drop the recommendation that the child live with the mother, and finally leave it to the discretion of the court. Sorry but i had evidence from personal affadavits from witnesses, from her school, from the police and even from Families SA’s own crisis care line, as well as proven breaches of it’s own orders. Finally after 3 years of fighting and 3 years of abuse and neglect for my daughter they gave me custody. My daughter though, payed a significant price because they sat on their hands and did nothing for 3 years. Don’t even get me started on the judge/registrar who when told of the awful language and denigration which was the daily lot of my daughter simply said “it’s no worse than she would hear at a football match, the child’s probably used to it”.
You make a very pertinant point when you say that changing the gov’t will make little difference. These people hide behind laws “like the cowards they are”, which completely absolve themselves from any public scrutiny or accountability for the damage they cause and the court puts far too much credence on the recommendations of these people instead of the often very clear evidence placed before them. In my own case the family court completely ignored solid and proven evidence of abuse and neglect and listened to these people instead. These people retain the same “untouchable status” regardless of which party is in gov’t.
Apart from laws, the whole culture of the system has to change from the ground up.
Ash/Admin,
“This is my second try to submit this. I am having trouble with my browser, so sorry if it comes up twice.”
Are you able to get a hold of the stats from the family court reveiw that was held in 2009/10 I think, where they wanted to see if there were any changes to the number of cases where shared care was granted?
If my memory serves me correctly, prior to 2006 changes sole custody was granted to the mother in 92% of all cases that came before the court. However, after the 3 years since the change, I remember them mentioning a figure of 12% of cases, where the decisions were for either sole custody for the father or for one of the varied shared care arrangments.
Now, the vast majority were for shared care, not sole custody.
So, going by the above if I am correct, there was a 4% increase in shared care in 3 years.
Wow!
And according to all the femmoNazis, the womens groups, the female femmoNazi politicians and all the Eunuchs who run around after these femmoNazis, this 4% represents a landslide of cases.
And according to them, there is a huge number of children now being put back into homes with violent parents, meaning Dads.
By saying this, they are accusing judges of placing children in harms way.
These people are nothing but man hating insane idiots. But these same idiots have been able to change the bloody law, which is absolutely astounding if you ask me.
Are you guys able to find some info from that family court report and post it here in this thread?
Thanks!
[Reply]
What has that got to do with the article?
[Reply]
What are the statistics on child abuse in Australia, I think it shows womenare the highest abusers ?
[Reply]