|
NEW ZEALAND
Care of Children Bill sells
families short
The tabling of the report on the Care of Children Bill
by the Justice and Electoral Select Committee marks a sad day for New
Zealand children, ACT New Zealand Deputy Leader and Social Welfare
Spokesman Dr Muriel Newman said today.
“The Bill was meant to be Labour's answer to the
problems in family law, which has resulted in New Zealand becoming a
world leader in family breakdown and fatherlessness. Yet the Bill has
failed to deliver the solutions that are so badly needed,” Dr Newman
said.
“In particular, Labour promised that this Bill would
be its answer to the widespread demand for shared parenting — whereby
just as two parents are equal before a relationship breakdown, so too
they should be equal after the breakdown unless one parent can prove
that the other is unfit. This equality of parental responsibility should
have been incorporated into the Bill to replace sole maternal custody as
the predominant outcome of family law cases.
“Instead, by failing to change the law in this regard, children, whose
parents separate, will find that more often than not, they will
eventually lose all effective contact with the their non-custodial
parent — usually their father. The law as it stands will continue to
ensure that after a separation, one of two people who love their child —
more than anyone else in the world — will essentially be shutout.
“The Government had an ideal opportunity to rectify this legal
discrimination against children and parents. But for ideological
reasons, it has chosen to turn a blind eye to the damage caused by the
present law.
“What is worse — as the police and judiciary will
verify — is that by excluding fathers from the lives of their sons and
daughters, all too often these children end up becoming involved in the
criminal justice system. Instead of spending hundreds of millions of
dollars attempting to reduce youth offending, Labour could have used
this Bill to get to the heart of the problem and prevented fathers from
being alienated in the first place,” Dr Newman said.
30 June 2004
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PA0406/S00481.htm
... also ...
An Alternative Report On The Care Of Children Bill
The
Justice and Electoral Select Committee report of the Care of Children
Bill is out, and the bill is predictably supported by just the Greens
and Labour. Two hundred and seventy seven people and groups made
submissions to the committee.
Many people wanted a greater openness of the Family
Court, but the committee decided against it until the newly appointed
Chief Family Court Judge made a strong submission.
About 70 percent of written submissions opposed the
bill. About 55 percent of oral submissions opposed the bill, as a
greater proportion of predominately homosexual supporters of the bill
made oral submissions.
One of the main sticking points for opponents was the
permission of abortions for minors without parental consent as per the
current Guardianship Act — yet permission is required to get
antibiotics. More than 10 percent of those who submitted did so on this
one point alone. It appeared that many were unaware, until this bill,
that those under the age of consent could currently get abortions
without parental consent or knowledge. Yet the committee is not
recommending any changes, as no evidence of abuse of this provision was
provided in submissions.
Most of those who tackled the main points of the bill
– as opposed to just the abortion or same sex parenting issues -
mentioned issues such as opposing assisted human reproductive technology
to those, mainly lesbians, in same sex relationships, the lesbian
“dads”' clause, S17(2), ( since removed) , the removal of the terms
“husband” and “wife” from the Family Proceedings Act, the openness of
the Family Court, shared parenting — and the equivalence of all
relationships with marriage. Many, mostly church groups and Christians,
appeared to have read the information on the Maxim Institute web site,
and based their submissions on the identified points. Some referenced
and quoted research from the Heritage Foundation and the Marriage
Project.
Of those that supported the bill at least 34 (18 oral)
were from those in the homosexual community most of whom followed a
template that was circulated around by e-mail, this template noted the
following six points and paragraph in support:
1. The resolution of care arrangements with families
2. Parenting orders 3. Personal status of partners when Assisted Human
Reproduction processes are used to conceive a child, and contact
agreements between such parties and donors. 4. Appointment of new
partners as guardians 5. Access to conciliation processes 6. Termination
of guardianship In our community we are aware of situations where the
welfare of the children has not been protected because of the
discriminatory content of existing laws. The current Guardianship Act
leaves children (in same sex relationships) vulnerable.
And that was pretty much the submission.
So, more than 30 percent of submitters focused solely
on either opposing the abortion provisions for those under the age of
consent or supporting the rights of same sex couples. Labour and the
Greens took the advice of the latter and ignored the former, while the
other parties did the opposite. And they will do so with the Civil Union
Bill as well.
Other supporters of the Bill were from government
funded organisations like the Law Commission, AIDS foundation, Rainbow
Labour and their affiliates, and the Family Planning Association. Some
of these groups, however, expressed serious concerns with elements of
the bill and suggested improvements.
The main submission from the unions considered that
the traditional model of the male breadwinner supported by a female with
primary responsibility for the care of children is no longer describing
a typical New Zealand family. They used this to back up the Bill’s
position on diversity of relationships. "The trend to more diverse
family relationships will continue and it is essential that the
legislative framework is capable of responding to the evolving structure
of families in future."
The Family Planning Association, in its oral
submission, provided additional research documents stating that good
parenting and adoption has nothing to do with ones sexual orientation,
and that diversity should be recognised and supported.
One couple from a gay advocacy group wrote a
submission on behalf of their group, a submission each, and arranged for
two of their relatives to do a submission supporting their relationship
and the bill. Most gay couples who submitted were lesbians and used a
template.
There was some concern regarding the provision that a
father of a child is a guardian if he lives with the mother anytime from
conception until birth.
Said one submitter:
“This clause is very broad and may adversely affect
mothers with violent partners. Violent relationships are often unstable
and making guardianship automatic even if there has only been a brief
time of de facto partnership may put the children and mothers at risk of
future violence, continuing conflict and psychological abuse even though
parents have not had a real relationship. Similar concerns have been
raised on relationship to clause 18 where guardianship is conferred if
the particulars of a child are registered on a child’s birth
certificate.”
Many submitters noted that there is no definition of
guardianship in the bill and there is a lack of a definition of “best
interests”.
Said one submitter:
“The definition of guardian (in the Guardianship Act)
was originally quite sensible when it applied only to the father.”
Some noted the judicial disagreement in the
distinction between welfare and best interests. Welfare recognises a
value judgement.
Some emphasised the importance of fathers and one
stressed that it would never be in the best interests of children to
deny their relationship with their natural father or to tell them that
their mother's female partner is equivalent to their dad.
One group said the principle of “welfare and best
interests” should be underpinned by a set of principles expanding on
considerations that must be made when best interests are assessed –
including attachment/securing and identity.
Some submitters noted the discrepancy between the Care
Of Children Bill and the Domestic Violence Act where the Domestic
Violence Act defines family violence as physical sexual and
psychological where the Care Of Children bill defines it as physical and
sexual only (clause 52).
Many of those on the Select Committee consider that
the bill legislates the shutting out of biological fathers from
children's lives.
Dave Crampton
30 June 2004
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0406/S00276.htm
home /
Previous
viewpoint
|
