|
 
AUSTRALIAN DEBATE
The myths about shared parenting
The Federal Government tables significant changes to
the Family Law Act with a view to encouraging both parents after divorce
to share parenting of their children. At the same time, the government
announces that $400 million will be spent in setting up 65 family
relationship centres across the country for the purpose of counselling
couples with relationship problems and, if they decide to separate, to
assist them to manage the aftermath in a sensible manner.
On the face of it, such sensible proposals might be
expected to meet with universal acceptance. Indeed, the average citizen
might even be moved to congratulate a government on such family-friendly
initiatives.
Not so. There has been a chorus of dissent from
significant interest groups and individuals. Former judge’s associate
Waleed Aly (Sydney Morning Herald, (2/2/06), describes the shared
parenting provisions as “little more than a mirage”. Family lawyerAndrea
Brooks (Sydney Morning Herald, (11/2/06), calls the relationship centres
“a triumph of style over substance”. The National Association of
Community Legal Centres suggests that the new family law and processes
“may be harmful to children” (“Seeing families right”, NACLC, December
2005).
Why all the big noise? After all, the government was
not merely responding to noisy fathers’ groups, as some have claimed. A
Federal Joint Select Committee, the Family Law Council, the Australian
Law Reform Commission and others, over the past ten years, have pointed
to serious deficiencies in the Family Law Act and its processes. Both
mothers and fathers - individually and in consort with parenting groups
- have responded vigorously to invitations for submissions to a number
of inquiries.
In 2003, the government commissioned an inter-party
committee to examine our family law system. The committee’s
investigations were not done by members sitting on their seats in
Canberra and chatting nicely to one another. For six months, the
committee travelled the nation, conducted public hearings and received
over 1,700 written submissions. The resulting report, “Every Picture
tells a Story”, ran to 240 pages, and contained 29 recommendations.
There was unanimous support for far-reaching reform of the system.
The government responded, a draft Bill was produced,
and this was subjected to further public scrutiny by way of another
inter-party committee. Out of this process the current Bill, the Family
Law Amendment (Shared Parenting) Bill, is now before the parliament.
Given all of the above, one would expect that the
reforms would attract overwhelming support. That this is not the case
bears close examination.
The objections emanating from pockets of resistance
can be loosely grouped as follows.
Equal or shared parenting is not in the best interests
of children. The NACLC paper claims: “There is no evidence that time
shared equally with both parents is actually more beneficial to
children.” In a paper purporting to “ensure the full facts are widely
known”, the authors have conveniently ignored at least three US studies
(for example, Bauserman (pdf file 80KB), 2002), and an Australian study
(Smyth et al (pdf file 3.74MB), 2003). This research shows that joint
custody or shared parenting of children after divorce brings positive
benefits to both children and their parents.
It is bold indeed for the NACL to rely so heavily on
the Rhoades report (pdf file 663KB) (2000) to support many of its
contentions, when it is well known that the limitations of that report
were trenchantly criticised by several commentators (for example,
Moloney 2001).
The NACLC suggests that what is important for children
after separation is stability. This is best achieved by sole-mother
custody, reflecting the parenting responsibilities in the intact family.
This is the no change argument. Thus the NACLC paper suggests that
children have enough to cope with “without asking them to cope with more
unnecessary change by requiring them to spend more time with the other
parent”.
This is head-in-the-sand stuff. Separation and divorce
are all about change and it is impossible to shield children from it.
What is important is to engineer the necessary changes in parenting that
look after them emotionally, intellectually and financially. The
stability that children hunger for is not geographical stability, but
the stability of meaningful relationships with the people most dear to
them, their mothers and fathers, grandparents, relatives and friends,
schools and communities. Shared parenting can deliver this.
Another objection is that compulsory mediation may
force separated parents, especially women, to negotiate with abusive
former partners, and to agree to parenting arrangements that are not
safe for them or their children.
This is not true and has never been true. No mediator
or mediation agency will conduct a mediation session when family
relationships are seriously affected by violence or abuse. In such
instances, mediation is always seen to be inappropriate. The new family
law provisions specifically exclude mediation in such cases.
Nor do mediators permit parties to agree to unsafe
parenting arrangements. While entry into mediation may be required,
remaining in the mediation session is voluntary, as is agreement to any
proposals. Moreover, the parties have access to legal advice, either
during the mediation or before signing any mediated agreement.
Such mischievous nonsense shields deeper currents. The
opposition to reform from lawyers can only be motivated by professional
and financial insecurity. Over 50 per cent of couples currently sort out
their own post-divorce arrangements with little or no recourse to the
law. With increasing education and the realisation that such a process
can be achieved without paying $300-500 an hour to a lawyer, this trend
is set to continue. In 10 years' time will there be any work left for
the generalist family lawyer? I doubt it. And if the government’s
programs of legislative reforms and community education are properly
supported, I can envisage that the services of many family court judges
will no longer be required.
The brayings of feminist groups are rooted in a
similar anxiety for self-preservation and in the feminist myth. Their
support for the present system reveals a concern about power and money:
if mothers share the parenting of children, it follows inevitably that
they will have to share control of the family and of the resources that
come with it, i.e. the home and financial support.
The need revealed by women’s groups for funding and
resources to support abused women and children is well established and
accepted. Not so, however, is the radical position that this is the lot
of most women and children, particularly in the aftermath of separation
or divorce. Radical feminism has done a disservice to women. It has
sought to portray them as poor, suffering creatures that need protection
from men and from paternalistic institutions. They are unable to speak
confidently for themselves, to make their own choices, and are easily
led into negotiations where their will and interests are overborne. Such
thinking is a grave insult to the majority of women.
Ask any experienced mediator who carries the power in
a mediation: almost inevitably the mother with the children.
The government is to be congratulated on having the
courage and energy to effect a new system of family law and practice so
soundly based on reliable research and the aspirations of right-thinking
men and women. If enacted, funded and supported by community education,
it will bring enormous benefits to mothers, fathers and children.
Michael Green QC
3 February 2006
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4126
home
/
Previous
viewpoint |