Leave a Comments »

Trackback / RSS 2.0

1. shivers - November 10, 2008

In my experience the new mediation centres and the shared parenting plan has worked excellently, even though I left due to abuse issues. Except we don’t share parent 50/50, he has our daughter 2 nights per week and is not interested in doing more. I call it share parenting though because despite his controlling behaviours while we were together, he’s stopped doing it now that we’re apart. To say that 50/50 shared parenting does not apply to where there is a history of abuse and violence is not strictly true. The mandated 50/50 still applies, and they have to rule that out first before mandating anything less, which means that abuse and/or violence has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in the family court. The truth is that for most separating parents they come to their own amicable agreement and many don’t even know about the change to 50/50, so for them, the change to the law wasn’t relevant. Then there’s the fathers groups that pushed for the 50/50 shared parenting arrangement, where even they stated that a majority of men would not even be able to uptake of the 50/50 due to working commitments. That leaves those that split due to violence (approx 42% of all separations) and/or abuse stuck with a possible 50/50 arrangement where it is definately NOT in the best interests of the child. So, in effect, the law assisted those who use control, coercion, power and domination in their relationship to continue after the relationship has broken down. There is an excellent report by Helen Rhoades ‘Yearning for Law: Father’s Groups and Family Law Reform in Australia, 10/10/2006 Hart Publishing, that goes into detail how all the research and empirical evidence goes against a 50/50 shared care arrangement. Quoted from page 131, “On some occasions, fathers’ groups simply alluded to the existence of empirical support for their position without naming any particular study, suggesting broadly that ‘all research available indicates that children require both their mother and their father to become balanced adults’, or that ‘most countries’ have ‘found from research studies that it is the sole custody regime that damages children the most’. Fathers bolstered their child welfare claims by telling stories about their own child’s desire to live with both parents - or as one father put it, to ’see mum and dad fairly’ - and at other times they invoked ‘common sense’ arguments, implying that the truth of their position was intuitively evident and needed no empirical backup. One submission quoted the following: “You ask a 5 yo child and he will tell you, ‘I want mum and dad.’ They all will.”

And it was this rhetoric that received the loudest voice. In my personal case, my 4 year old when I left definately did NOT want to see her Dad, she was actively afraid of him.

Since that 2003 enquiry, and even before, there is in fact a reasonable amount of research to show that shared care doesn’t have the desired effect that was pushed by the fathers rights groups. It has been almost convincingly found that *quality* time with both parents is what is in the emotional best intersts of the child.

Since the 50/50 shared parenting arrangement wasn’t necessary in non-warring parents, and since a larger than desired number of fathers aren’t interested in being a parent in their childs life (in other words, those that walk away), that leaves those partnerships that suffered under the oppression of family violence and abuse to resort to the courts where 50/50 is to be ruled out before any other ruling can be made.

There is building empirical evidence of a cohort of young children that are stuck under this regime and are showing considerable stress. I can’t find the report where I read that recently to quote from, but I did read it. I might be able to dig it out if anyone wishes to discuss it further.

2. shivers - November 10, 2008

sorry, I sent the wrong email with that last post, this post has the correct email address attached.

3. admin - November 10, 2008

Shivers,

Thanks so much for stopping by and giving us the real deal about what’s happening in Australia. Thanks too for the heads up on the Rhoades article.

~Deesha