With Special Guests
Commentator Simon Hunt and
Barry Williams,
President Lone Fathers.
This was our last show of the year for 2005. The Dads On The Air team
would like to thank all the forum participants, who have made it such
a lively debating ground during the past year. And thanks to our
interview subjects, who this year included the head of the Family
Court Chief Justice Diana Bryant. That she came readily onto the show
and gave so generously of her time was a good sign that there is
change afoot. We were also pleased to have the new head of the Child
Support Agency Matt Miller on the program, and his appearance also
heralded a new approach to fathers. Other guests in 2005 have included
Attorney General Philip Ruddock, Dr John Hirst, author of Kangaroo
Court; domestic violence expert Dr Charles Corry, world renowned
gender commentator Dr Warren Farrell, the very courageous and
outspoken member for Hume Alby Schultz, Barry Williams of Lone
Fathers, Tony Miller from Dads In Distress, Sue Price from the Men’s
Rights Agency, Warwick Marsh from the Fatherhood Foundation, John
Flanagan from the Non-Custodial Parents Party and Melinda Poole,
creator of the new Australian Divorce Directory amongst others.
Our special thanks to Mike, our co-host, panel operator and show
recorder; to Uncle Buck, co-host, panel operator and determined
proponent for reform of the legal system; to Glen, owner of web
company Zanyspace. His creation of the site has been fundamental to
the success of the program. To John, our ever determined reporter,
interviewer and editorial supervisor; to Trish, who’s background
support, research and on-air opinions add depth. To Evan, who ensures
that major news of interest to fathers is not overlooked. And of
course our special thanks to the folks at 2GLF, who have helped make
Dads On The Air one of the most visited and most successful community
radio websites in Australia.
Court orders are still being made in Australia which deny any contact
between a father and their child, and Simon Hunt speaks very movingly
about fathers and children who are in this situation. Barry Williams,
too, confirms that outrageous bias against fathers still continues in
the family law arena. But while Hunt is sceptical that the
government’s family law agenda, to hit the ground in February, will
bring about real change, Barry Williams is more positive that there
has been real progress in the past 12 months. The article below by the
Shared Parenting Council of Australia is a good summary of what was
achieved in 2005.
Simon Hunt asks: “Should our society accept that a father is penalised
or financially destroyed for doing everything he can to stay a part of
his daughter’s childhood….on the basis that he was unsuccessful?
Does the government have a duty of care to protect children from the
sadness, loss and dysfunction inflicted on the majority of children
whose parents separate? – by virtue of the Family Court’s unbending
resolve to proclaim one parent to be the “non-custodial” parent, and
exclude the other totally if the it is persuaded that it needs to
protect the sanity of the custodial parent and the sanity of “the
child”.
“This is what they do in all protracted cases. Those that settle do so
in the knowledge of this…on the advice of solicitors who knows that
this will happen if it doesn’t settle.
“This is the way the game is played. As long as both parents fight to
maintain their biological, instinctive to protect and nurture their
children. Or until one loses their livelihood and runs out of money.
“The desperation of the excluded parent is usually matched by the
desperation of the mother who is dealing with the desperation and
despair of the children. The Family Court routinely accepts the
argument that exclusion is therefor in the child’s best Interests, on
the basis that contact with the father causes the distress. You
yourself know (I believe only too well) the distress your children
feel at not having you in their lives much anymore…only two bedtime
hugs and storeys every two weeks, if they’re lucky.”
Barry Williams speaks as determinedly as ever on behalf of fathers;
but is much more optimistic that the governments new family law
legislation will actually make a real difference on the ground.
The Shared Parenting Council of Australia has put out the following
article, which is a good summary of the achievements of 2005:
“The family law reform movement in Australia, including the Shared
Parenting Council of Australia and numerous other smaller groups, have
been working hard to change the entrenched attitudes within the family
law industry. Sole mother custody of children is falsely regarded as
being in the best interests of children. That marginalizing fathers
from their children’s lives is not in the best interests of the
children should be self-evident. The Howard government, in introducing
the new Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill
appears to agree.
Advocates for reform of family law around Australia argued for a
rebuttable presumption of shared and equal parenting because they
believed very strongly that starting in the middle and working out how
best to include both parents in their children’s lives was better than
the present adversarial, one size fits all, system. Insufficient
parenting time corrodes and finally extinguishes bonds between
children and the marginalized parent. It was envisaged that the final
parenting plan negotiated by parents, centred on 50:50 equal time
parenting time, but flexible enough to suit the family’s
circumstances, would have ensured that no child had a fit parent
terminated from their life. Parenting groups wanted to break the 30
year history of anti-father rhetoric that has bedeviled family
separation in Australia and kept children away from their loving
fathers.
Unfortunately Howard’s new Bill does not mandate shared parenting, but
it does encourage shared responsibility. By including the stricture
that the court must look at equal-time custody as an option, the
changes are designed to send a clear message to the judiciary to stop
violating the will of the Parliament and the will of the people, and
give greater consideration to making shared parenting orders.
The parliament, in 1995 passed legislation aimed at encouraging the
cooperative care of children after divorce, an attempt to take the
immense sadness, bitterness, and poor outcomes for the children out of
divorce. Family Court judges, with their own views of what was in the
best interests of children, largely chose to ignore the shared
parenting intentions of Parliament. Many people who want to see
genuine family law reform in this country fear the wording of the bill
is still not strong enough to encourage the court to actively work
with parents to create shared and cooperative arrangements
post-separation.
Both parents should be equally important before the law. Equal-time
shared-parenting, that is, where each parent cares for the child for
at least 40 per cent of the time, is in the best interests of children
because it protects children’s relationship with both parents and
their inalienable right to know both their mother and their father.
Shared care results in the most well-rounded, well-adjusted children,
equipped to handle life and relationships, more able to reach their
goals and achieve success in life. In contrast, all the research here
and overseas points to sole custody and father absence as being the
strongest predictor of young children failing to thrive and achieve,
and is directly correlated to academic failure, crime and
imprisonment, unwanted pregnancies and poverty. Two parents can do
more than one. The shortage of parenting in this country can be
addressed by involving two loving parents rather than artificially
shifting the burden to raise children onto only one parent at great
expense to the taxpayer.
Many intact couples are already sharing their parenting as they
balance his and her careers. Many young women support shared parenting
because it spreads the load of bringing up children and allows both
parties to get on with their lives. Absent a meddling court and
disruption from dollar-driven lawyers, parents who are not impeded
from continuing their shared parenting have the lowest levels of
conflict.
Phillip Ruddock’s Family Relationship Centres will rightly keep
lawyers and the court out of dispute resolution. The adversarial legal
system is in itself the greatest source of conflict amongst separating
parents, with acrimony amplified by legal maneuvers to strip fathers
of custody. For children, equal time shared parenting prevents the
pain of the loss of a parent. It has been found to work well even in
high conflict cases. By reducing hostilities it allows parents to
focus on their children.
Statistics show that after 3 years, 80% of fathers who are given the
Courts template fortnightly night contact, lose all touch with their
children. The Government’s Child Custody Inquiry recognized that
fathers were being given insufficient time to stay bonded with their
children. Despondent fathers often find access to their children is
denied.
History has shown that family law lawyers and judges will not reform
their attitude without legislation to protect children from the courts
preference for sole custody. The Howard government’s Family
Relationship Centres will go a long way to ending the legal system’s
financial exploitation of parents grasping to stay connected with
their children.
The Family Court was begun in the Whitlam era, painted as a
marvelously progressive institution. Now its reputation could hardly
be more tarnished. Virtually everyone in Australia knows someone who
has been cut out of their children’s lives through separation and the
legal environment that surrounds it.
Fathers, “non-custodial parents”, have not been the only victims.
Children of today ask, “Where’s Daddy?” As adults of tomorrow they may
well ask, “Why did you take my Daddy away?” Discrimination against men
and fathers by academics and elites along with profiteering from
family breakdown by the legal fraternity are largely responsible. The
supposed experts in this field who direct family law policies have
ensured that their views reign supreme over the real experts, parents
themselves. The only truly effective protection that children and
parents can have of their unique and personal relationships is equal
treatment before the law. It remains to be seen if this Government has
the resolve to reform the legal machinery that has treated children
like property and rendered a generation fatherless.
Two fit parents who want to parent in substantially equal measure
should be presumed to already know and be acting in the best interests
of their children. Parents see the court as foe, not friend, and the
low social approval of the Court will continue until it can redeem
itself, a redemption firmly rooted in the needs of children to
continue to enjoy the protection, love and nurture of both their
parents after separation and divorce.”