information - family law reviews 2009/10

All information about the Family Law and Child Support changes in chronological order

28 January 2010
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
ROBERT McCLELLAND MP

RELEASE OF FAMILY LAW REVIEWS

Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, today released key reports examining the operation of the family law system and how the family law courts deal with cases involving family violence.

The reports provide a comprehensive and objective analysis of the family law system against the aim of providing fair and sustainable solutions for families, while ensuring the safety and wellbeing of children, Mr McClelland said.

The Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) looks at the impact of changes which included:

• introducing a presumption of shared parental responsibility into the Family Law Act 1975;


• requiring separating parents to attend family dispute resolution before going to court, with some limited exceptions, including where there were issues relating to family violence; and


• establishing Family Relationship Centres to provide information, advice and assistance to families with relationship difficulties.

www.ag.gov.au.

Downloads:

AIFS: Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms - Full Report (PDF document 5,7MB)

AIFS: Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms - Summary Report (PDF document 744kb)

Family Courts Violence Review by Professor Richard Chisholm AM (PDF document 1MB)

Improving Responses to Family Violence in the Family Law System (PDF document 584kb)

Family Law Reviews: News and Opinions:

28 January 2010
ABC News

Shared parenting laws 'misinterpreted'
By George Roberts for PM

A review of recent changes made to family law has found the reforms have negatively affected children from violent and abusive backgrounds.

The Federal Government's review of the 2006 reforms outlined significant concerns, finding that children from families with safety concerns were let down badly by the system, and of those, children in shared care came out the worst.

But the Government says it is reluctant to change the new laws, which require judges to consider letting each parent have equal time with their children if there is going to be an order for equal shared parent responsibility.

Instead it is hoping an education campaign can clear up what it says are misunderstandings about what the changes were meant to do.

Professor Alan Hayes is the director of the Institute of Family Studies, the organisation that conducted the review, and he says the developmental implications and impacts of the reforms are problematic.

"For about 4 to 5 per cent of children who are in care arrangements with shared care, there is concern for violence and safety," he said.

"And it doesn't matter what the circumstance is, when children are in unsafe circumstances the outcomes are not good."

Professor Hayes says the new laws have led to some confusion.

"There's misunderstanding of the difference between shared parental responsibility and shared care time - those two things are often rolled together," he said.

"And that leads some people to have a sense of disillusionment, because they start with an assumption of a right to, for example, equal shared care time, and find that that's not in fact the case, that's not the reality of the law.

"And I think that gets in the way of resolution of the issues."

Changes unlikely

Attorney-General Robert McClelland admitted the wording of the legislation could be improved, but said he would instead prefer an education campaign.

"We are now in a situation where, perhaps as a result of misinformation, people have resolved cases where the best interest of the children may not have been regarded as a result of the misunderstanding and misconception as to what the law required, or the outcome that would be achieved if they went to court," he said.

"And our task now is to clarify that. I think it's fair to say that this will probably be the most controversial area in the public domain. It will also be the area where the Government will exercise greatest caution.

"We will be certainly looking at the lighter touch approaches before we will be diving into the deeper waters of wholesale legislative amendments."

Latrobe University child psychologist Associate Professor Jennifer McIntosh says an education campaign on its own is not sufficient.

"I think the findings certainly support the findings of a number of my own studies, that children in shared care are doing particularly poorly when there's a history of safety or violence concerns," she said.

"And I think that we ignore the data at our peril. But I'm not convinced that an education campaign is enough when ... we have misleading wording in the legislation.

"And I think the legislation itself needs to be cleaned up concurrently with an education campaign."

28 January 2010
The Age (Melbourne)

Family violence report takes aim at 'troublesome' shared parenting laws
By Misha Schubert

Custody laws should make it clearer that separated fathers are not entitled to a 50-50 time split with their children, after the sweeping reforms of 2006 led parents to focus more on their rights instead of their children's needs.

Three major reviews of shared parenting laws have urged dramatic changes to the family law system, including a major expansion of the definition of family violence to include economic and emotional abuse, and automatic violence risk assessments in all parenting court cases.

In his hard-hitting report on family violence, former judge Richard Chisholm takes aim at the "confusing and troublesome" shared parenting laws which distracted parents from focusing on the child's interests.

Poor drafting of the laws had led many parents to "wrongly assume" the laws meant children should spend equal time with each parent except in cases of violence.

"The tangle of legal technicality that resulted from the 2006 amendments may well have distracted parties and those advising them from focusing on what arrangements are likely to be best for the children," he found.

"It may also have led to the very opposite (of what was) intended, namely the parties thinking about their own entitlements rather than what is best for their children."

Professor Chisholm also blasted the current system of violence notices in the courts - "experience has shown this system is not working" and says because the risk of violence is so common in parenting cases, a risk assessment should be done in every instance.

He also raises concerns that clauses drafted to prevent vexatious claims of violence may deter victims of violence from speaking up about it for fear of punishment or legal disadvantage.

Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland today released the independent reviews of the reforms enacted by the Howard Government in 2006, with mixed assessments of the system.

A detailed study on the impact of the laws on 28,000 people by the Australian Institute of Family Studies found conflicting evidence on the success of the changes, "with a positive impact in some areas and a less positive impact in others".

There was strong support for the principle of shared care - as distinct from equal custody - although it was in place in only 16 per cent of separated families. Only 7 per cent have equal time arrangements.

The trend to more parents adopting shared care arrangements began before the reforms, but the changes had also encouraged parents to focus more on their own rights and led to a misconstrued belief they were "entitled" to spend equal time with the child.

"Many legal sector professionals said the reforms, negotiations and litigation over parenting arrangements had become more focused on parents rights than children's needs," it concluded.

"A focus on the primacy of children's best interests is difficult to maintain when parents are concerned with what they perceive to be their own rights under the legislation."

Many fathers had also become disillusioned because they believed the new laws "entitled" them to 50-50 time split of custody - rather than the best arrangement for the child.

Yet many legal sector professionals felt the reforms had "favoured fathers over mothers and parents over children" and that the post-reform bargaining dynamics had put mothers "on the back foot".

But the study found little confidence across the system that it was protecting families from violence and child abuse and neglect, and said it had "some way to go" to respond effectively to those challenges.

The third review is the by the Family Law Council, a statutory body of experts advising the government on family law, urged a dramatic widening of the definition of family violence to offer more protection from threatening behaviour.

It urges replacing a "reasonable" fear for one's safety or wellbeing with a detailed list of abuse including economic and emotional hostility - particularly if a child witnesses it.

The council is also advocating a national register of family violence orders and a new system to apply them across state borders, as well as simpler forms to notify the courts of violence.

The Rudd Government is considering its options on reform, but is understood to be wary of moving rapidly on the contentious issues involved in an election year.

But Mr McClelland suggested changes would be pursued in time. "The Government is committed to improving the family law system so that separated families can effectively access the help they need and disputes can be resolved in the best interests of children."

Professor Patrick Parkinson, who helped to design the 2006 changes, hailed the finding that the new laws had resulted in a 22 per cent drop in family law cases going to court.

28 January 2010
ABC Radio - PM

Family law reforms disadvantage children from violent families

SHANE MCLEOD: Recent changes made to family law have been found to negatively affect children from violent and abusive backgrounds.

But the Federal Government has put it down to a misunderstanding of the 2006 reforms and says it's reluctant to change them.

Instead it's hoping an education campaign can clear up any confusion about what the changes were meant to do.

George Roberts reports.

GEORGE ROBERTS: It's taken three years and involved 28,000 Australians. Now the Federal Government's review of the 2006 family law reforms is in. The report found that while the system's working for most families, there are significant concerns about the reforms' impact on families and children who are exposed to abuse and violence.

ALAN HAYES: It's a real problem around the developmental implications and impacts. For about 4 to 5 per cent of children who are in care arrangements with shared care, there is concern for violence and safety and it doesn't matter what the circumstance is, when children are in unsafe circumstances the outcomes are not good.

GEORGE ROBERTS: Professor Alan Hayes is the director of the Institute of Family Studies which conducted the review. The Institute found that children from families with safety concerns were let down badly by the system and of those, children in shared care, came out the worst. The law requires for judges to consider letting each parent have equal time with their children, if there is going to be an order for equal shared parent responsibility. But Professor Hayes says this has led to some confusion.

ALAN HAYES: There's misunderstanding of the difference between shared parental responsibility and shared care time and those two things are often rolled together and that leads some people to have a sense of disillusionment because they start with an assumption of a right to for example equal shared care time and find that that's not in fact the case, that's not the reality of the law. And I think that gets in the way of resolution of the issues.

GEORGE ROBERTS: The Federal Government recognises that the wording of the legislation may have contributed to that. The Attorney General, Robert McClelland

ROBERT MCCLELLAND: We are now in a situation where perhaps as a result of misinformation people have resolved cases where the best interest of the children may not have been regarded as a result of the misunderstanding and misconception as to what the law required or the outcome that would be achieved if they went to court. Our task now is to clarify that.

GEORGE ROBERTS: But he says he's reluctant to change the legislation and would instead prefer an education campaign.

ROBERT MCCLELLAND: I think it's fair to say that this will probably be the most controversial area in the public domain. It will also be the area where the Government will exercise greatest caution; we will be certainly looking at the lighter touch approaches before we will be diving into the deeper waters of wholesale legislative amendments.

GEORGE ROBERTS: Associate Professor Jennifer McIntosh is a child psychologist from La Trobe University.

JENIFER MCINTOSH: I think the findings certainly support the findings of a number of my own studies that children in shared care are doing particularly poorly when there's a history of safety or violence concerns. And I think that we ignore the data at our peril. But I'm not convinced that an education campaign is enough when I think that we have, inadvertently we have some misleading wording in the legislation and I think the legislation itself needs to be cleaned up concurrently with an education campaign.

SHANE MCLEOD: La Trobe University Associate Professor Jenifer McIntosh ending that report by George Roberts.

29 January 2010
The Daily Telegraph (Sydney)

Children 'at risk' in shared parenting
By Xanthe Kleinig

The practice of splitting child custody equally between divorced parents is being questioned after a major study found one in five parents in the arrangement believed it was not working.

An estimated 90,000 Australian children are in shared-care arrangements under a policy introduced by the Howard government with the support of fathers' rights groups.

But the largest study of the family law system, released yesterday, found a presumption of a 50-50 split was putting some children into violent homes.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland said yesterday a "misunderstanding" that parents were guaranteed equal time under the law was to blame. "Bush lawyers or pub lawyers are providing advice to people going through the system that is wrong," he said.

"We are now in a situation where people have resolved cases where the best interest of children may have not been regarded."

Family laws introduced in 2006 included a presumption of equal parental responsibility, widely interpreted as an even-time split.

But researchers said yesterday parents had agreed to shared care even when they did not have to. Other parents were disillusioned because they were not granted a perfectly equal arrangement.

And violence was not being addressed in court because of the threat of paying full court costs if the allegations were not proven.

Men's Rights Agency director Sue Price said any shift away from equal time was a "disastrous" return to the old-fashioned notion that fathers didn't count.

"It is not good for children not to have both mum and dad in their life," Ms Price said.

The Australian Institute of Family Studies report, which took three years and surveyed 28,000 people, found about one in 20 children in shared care had parents who reported violence as a risk.

"There are significant concerns around the minority of families where there are safety concerns," institute director Professor Alan Hayes said. Where safety concerns were reported by parents, children suffered but they suffered the most when they were in shared care agreements, he said.

But researchers found "overwhelming" community support for the concept of shared parenting.

Ms Price said violence by women was ignored in the three reports released yesterday.

29 January 2010
The Age (Melbourne)

Custody law reform called for
By Misha Schubert

Sweeping changes to custody laws have fostered wrong assumptions and prompted parents to focus on their rights ahead of children's needs, reviews of shared parenting laws have found.

The reviews say the laws, changed in 2006, need to spell out to separated fathers that they have no right to a 50-50 time split with their children.

They urge changes to the family law system, including an expansion of the definition of family violence to include economic and emotional abuse, and introducing automatic violence risk assessments in all court cases involving parenting.

In a hard-hitting report on family violence, former judge Richard Chisholm takes aim at the "confusing and troublesome" shared parenting laws, which he says have distracted parents from the best arrangement for their children.

Poor drafting of the laws had led many parents to "wrongly assume" the law meant children should spend equal time with each parent except in cases of violence, when it merely asked courts to consider if equal time was a good idea.

"The tangle of legal technicality that resulted from the 2006 amendments may well have distracted parties and those advising them from focusing on what arrangements are likely to be best for the children," he found. "It may also have led to the very opposite [of what was] intended, namely the parties thinking about their own entitlements rather than what is best for their children."

Professor Chisholm blasts the system of violence notices in the courts, saying "experience has shown this system is not working" and, because the risk of violence is common in parenting cases, a risk assessment should be done in every case.

He raises fears that clauses drafted to prevent vexatious claims of violence may deter victims from speaking up.

Releasing the reports yesterday, federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland agreed there was a misconception fathers were entitled to a 50-50 time split. "How we address that is what we've now got to decide," he said.

A study of the impact of the laws on 28,000 people by the Australian Institute of Family Studies found conflicting evidence on the success of the changes. There was strong support for the principle of shared care, as distinct from equal custody, although it was in place in only 16 per cent of separated families. Only 7 per cent had equal-time arrangements.

The trend to more parents adopting shared care began before the changes, but the changes had encouraged parents to focus more on their own rights and led to a misconstrued belief they were entitled to equal time with the child.

"A focus on the primacy of children's best interests is difficult to maintain when parents are concerned with what they perceive to be their own rights under the legislation."

Many fathers were disillusioned because they believed the new laws entitled them to a 50-50 custody split. The study found little confidence across the system that it was protecting families from violence, child abuse and neglect.

A third review, by the Family Law Council, a statutory body advising the Government on family law, urged a widening of the definition of family violence to offer more protection from threatening behaviour.

It urges replacing a "reasonable" fear for one's safety or wellbeing with a detailed list of abuse including economic and emotional hostility - particularly if a child witnesses it.

The council also advocates a national register of family violence orders and a new system to apply them across state borders.

The Government is considering changes but is believed to be wary of moving rapidly on the contentious issues involved in an election year. Mr McClelland suggested changes would be pursued in time.

Professor Patrick Parkinson, who helped design the 2006 changes, hailed the finding they had led to a 22 per cent drop in family law cases going to court.

29 January 2010
The Australian
Editorial

Parenting, not politics
The government needs to be cautious on Family Law

Attorney-General Robert McClelland says he wants community debate on recommendations that would wind back shared parenting laws. Let's hope he is prepared to truly listen up. This is an issue demanding careful assessment based on data - and broad community wishes - rather than any abrupt return to past practices that minimise the role of separated and divorced fathers in the care of their children.

There is pressure, some of it from the Attorney-General's frontbench colleagues, for a change to the Family Law reforms introduced by the Howard government in 2006. But while there are clearly cases where violent and abusive fathers must be denied access, this minority effect ought not undermine the principle of equal parental responsibility.

The 2006 reforms were a long-overdue move to redress the gender imbalance underlying the assumption made by the Family Court that children were better off spending most time with their mothers. The changes have been controversial, not only because the Family Court has sometimes struggled to resolve conflicting claims from parents living in different locations or in determining the risk of violence, but also because their scope has been misunderstood.

Two reports released yesterday - the four-month review by Richard Chisholm and the three-year assessment by the Australian Institute of Family Studies - make that clear. Both argue that the Howard changes were never about a 50-50 split in the amount of time spent by each parent with their children, but a 50-50 sharing of responsibility. This clarification is important, but the government must now decide whether it needs to revisit the legislation to spell this out, as suggested by Professor Chisholm. He also wants amendments to "bring the focus back to what is best for the children", an emphasis shared by the institute in its almost 400-page report, which acknowledges the family law system "has some way to go" in dealing with violence and associated issues. The institute offers only broad suggestions about the way forward but its comprehensive review of the operation of the law means there is now a solid body of data on which to base policy development.

Family law is a fraught area: almost 20 per cent of separated parents, for example, say their relationship is "full of conflict or fearful". It is scarcely surprising that in this hothouse environment, shared parenting has been hotly contested by people at both ends of the political spectrum and from both mothers and fathers - even though only 16 per cent of children from separated families are in shared care-time arrangements.

The government now has the research (including a third report released yesterday by the Family Law Council) to decide what, if any, changes are needed. The focus must indeed be on the children, but the opportunity for both men and women to develop loving relationships with their offspring must not be ignored.

29 January 2010
The Australian

Call to end shared custody: Chisholm report
By Caroline Overington

A report commissioned by the Rudd government recommends major changes to the controversial shared parenting law introduced by former prime minister John Howard, saying it has put women and children at risk.

The report by retired Family Court judge Richard Chisholm says the law has also set fathers up to believe they are entitled to a 50-50 time split with their children after divorce, when this was never the parliament's intention, nor part of the law. The report into family law was ordered by Attorney-General Robert McClelland, in response to the shocking death of four-year-old Melbourne girl Darcey Freeman, who was thrown to her death from the West Gate Bridge one year ago.

Her father, Arthur Freeman, is now facing a murder charge.

In launching the report yesterday, Mr McClelland said it was "motivated at least in part by the very tragic events, in the case of Darcey Freeman".

It has previously been reported that Darcey's mother was too frightened to raise allegations of violence in the Family Court, lest she be considered an "unfriendly" parent determined to interrupt the relationship between the children and their father.

She ultimately agreed to a custody arrangement that gave her former husband access to all three of their children.

It is alleged that Mr Freeman threw Darcey from the bridge on her first day of school.

Mr McClelland said it was clear from the Chisholm report, and from two other reviews of the shared parenting law, also released yesterday, that women had become reluctant to raise allegations of violence, in part because the court can now punish them by hitting them with the entire bill for proceedings if the allegations are not proved.

The court is also thought to take a dim view of women who raise allegations of violence that are not substantiated, describing them as "unfriendly".

Professor Chisholm said many fathers believed the shared parenting laws entitled them to a 50-50 time split with their children, when in fact that was never part of the Howard government's changes.

Mr McClelland agreed that "misunderstanding needed to be addressed". "The question is whether you need legislation to get that information out," Mr McClelland said. The government would be looking at the "lighter touch" approach of public education, before diving into the "deeper waters of legislative change".

The Chisholm report angered men's rights groups, who believe shared parenting is working well for the vast majority of couples that enter into the arrangement.

That view is supported by a separate 400-page Australian Institute of Family Studies review of family law, also released yesterday, which found overwhelming public support for the idea of shared parenting. More than 80 per cent of people surveyed said they supported shared parenting.

More than 70 per cent of couples who were in a shared parenting arrangement even said it was working well.

Mr McClelland agreed that there had been some positive developments from the 2006 changes, chiefly that fathers no longer assumed that they had to accept an 80-20 time split with their children after divorce.

"We've moved past that, but we are now in a situation where ... the misconception (that each parent is entitled to a 50-50 time split) has taken hold," Mr McClelland said.

"Our task now is to clarify that. The focus has to be on the best interests of the children, and not the rights of parents."

Professor Chisholm's report says legislative change is necessary to make it clear that judges won't apply a one-size-fits-all approach to custody and will consider "what is best for the child".

Former Family Court chief justice Alistair Nicholson said the recommendations were "absolutely the way I would have gone". "The fault lies with the legislation," he said. "I have great sympathy for the judges trying to interpret it.

"Absolutely, yes, it must be up to judges and magistrates to decide what is best for each child in each case."

Family Court of Australia Chief Justice Diana Bryant and Acting Chief Federal Magistrate Michael Baumann said they, too, had identified "some ways in which the (system) could be improved or were not working as well as was anticipated".

29 January 2010
Herald Sun (Melbourne)

Dads face tough fight for kids under proposed new custody laws
By Phillip Hudson

Separated fathers could find it harder to secure 50-50 custody of their children, and women should be more easily able to raise concerns about violence, under proposed changes to the nation's custody laws.

The Family Court may also be asked to apply a new "triage" system to more quickly assess urgent risks relating to violence, relocation, substance abuse or mental-health issues.

Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the Government was considering the suggestions after he released three reports, which looked at hot-button family-law issues such as shared parenting and violence.

Three years ago the Howard government introduced shared parenting rules, which required the Family Court to set arrangements where both parents could be involved in their children's lives after a divorce.

The court was also urged to consider 50-50 equal time for parents instead of an automatic tendency to give one parent, usually the mother, full time custody, with the father having access at alternative weekends and half the school holidays.

But while backing shared parenting, yesterday's reviews said in some cases parents, lawyers and judges had misunderstood the idea and wrongly believed it meant equal custody.

It said with hindsight some of the changes "have proved confusing and troublesome" and the resulting "tangle of legal technicality" had distracted the focus from what would be best for the children.

"Many people seem to have wrongly assumed that the amendments created a presumption that children should spend equal time with each parent (except in cases of violence or abuse)," said the 275-page report by retired judge Richard Chisholm.

The Government has also been urged to soften the law that deters parents, usually women, from making allegations about violent behaviour by the other parent.

At present, if the claim cannot be proven, the parent making the allegation can have legal costs awarded against them.

While violence is not a factor in most cases before the court, the Government has been told two-thirds of separated mothers and half of separated fathers say the other parent had emotionally abused them.

One-quarter of mums and 16 per cent of dads said they had been physically hurt and one-in-five had safety concerns about the other parent who still had contact with the child.

Prof Chisholm suggested a triage system be created to all cases "to identify any risk that requires urgent attention".

He said it could assess violence, problems stemming from mental illness or serious substance abuse and proposed relocation by one parent.

The Government will also look at widening the definition of violence to include threatening behaviour and create a national register of family violence orders.

29 January 2010
The Australian

Joint parenting must stay: men's rights group
By Caroline Overington

Men's rights groups will fight any planned rollback of the shared parenting laws, saying reports released yesterday prove an overwhelming majority of Australians support the right of children to know both their parents after divorce.

A 1,000-page review of the Howard government's so-called shared parenting law, conducted by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, found a reduction in the number of cases going to the Family Court since shared parenting was introduced in 2006.

It also found an increase in the number of parents willing to settle custody arrangements outside the court system, and it found children and parents were happy with shared care.

Shared care doesn't mean a 50-50 time split, but it does mean the child spends "substantial time" with each parent.

The review, which took two years and involved 28,000 people, including 15,000 parents, found conflict between parents led to "worse outcomes" for children who lived in shared-care arrangements. But for most people it worked well.

Shared care advocate Michael Green QC said the report was "terrific".

"It shows 80 per cent of parents are co-operating, sorting things out for themselves." He said the report made it clear "no change to the law is necessary".

The AIFS report was one of three into family law released yesterday, and it made no recommendations, with the authors saying they were not asked to provide any.

Another report, by retired Family Court judge Richard Chisholm, recommends several changes to the law, saying judges needed to be able to decide each case on its merits.

Executive director of the Shared Parenting Council, Edward Dabrowski, said his organisation would resist any law change that would wind back the concept of shared parenting.

29 January 2010
The Australian

Dads the winners under shared parenting: lawyers
By Caroline Overington

A majority of family court lawyers believe shared parenting laws introduced by the Howard government in 2006 favour fathers over mothers and parents over children.

They say there has been a reduction in the average property settlement awarded to mothers since the shared parenting law came into force, and they also believe fathers are trying to negotiate more time with their children to lower the amount they have to pay in child support.

These findings are included in a 400-page review of the changes to the Family Law Act by the Australian Institute of Family Studies. It says a clear majority of parents in shared-care arrangements believe the reforms are "working well" for them and their children. On the other hand, only a minority of children (16 per cent) are in shared-care arrangements.

The odds of getting "shared care" (which doesn't mean a 50-50 time split, but substantial time with the children) is higher for parents who go to court, with 23 per cent of cases resulting in a shared-care outcome.

One in five parents, however, have safety concerns, in particular that children are being forced into shared-care relationships with violent partners.

The report also finds the Family Relationship Centres, which separating parents must now attend before going to the Family Court, have been a success. A clear majority of parents who tried to resolve their differences in the centres said it "worked well" and most sorted out their arrangements without using lawyers or the courts.

"A significant proportion of separated parents are able to sort out their post-separation arrangements with minimal engagement with the formal system," the report says.

It says the "shared parental responsibility" provision of the shared parenting legislation was often "misunderstood".

29 January 2010
On Line Opinion

The vilification of fatherhood
By Warwick Marsh

From a fatherhood point of view it's been an interesting week. I try not to read the newspapers much but my news addiction gets the better of me sometimes. When Thoreau, the famous philosopher, was asked whether he wanted the newspaper delivered he replied nonchalantly, "I have seen a newspaper". Generally newspapers seem to be a mixture of bad news, occasional bits of truth and loads of exaggeration and barefaced lies. Songwriter Larry Norman, in regards to the media, sang, "They exaggerate the issues while they shove them down our throats". This week was no exception.

On Wednesday of this week I noticed a story about our new Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott. The story sprang out of a Women's Weekly interview with him. The headline read,
"Abbott confirms women's worst fears"
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/abbott-confirms-lwomens-worst-fears/story-e6frg6n6-1225823774571

Julia Gillard said, "Australian women don't want to be told what to do by Tony Abbott". Pro porn academic Catharine Lumby said, "Mr Abbott's comments harked back to an era when women 'were shamed and blamed for having a normal sexual appetite and behaviour' ".

Mind you, this is from a woman who in teaching sexual ethics to footballers, with a history of abusing women, raised the argument in promotion of group sex. Not something that footballers need to hear at the best of times. These comments were just some of the deadly cinders of the media firestorm.

My interest was aroused. What exactly did Tony Abbott, father of three beautiful teenage girls, say to get him into so much trouble? Women's Weekly was obviously laughing all the way to the bank with all the extra sales from such a controversial article. I poured over the 10-page special, looking for Mr Abbott's wild pronouncements, but all I could find was great support for marriage and family and excellent advice for his daughters. On the question of sex before marriage, Tony Abbott said, "I would say to my daughters, if they were to ask the question, I would say . it is the greatest gift that you can give someone, the ultimate gift of giving and don't give it to someone lightly, that is what I would say".

What, pray tell, is wrong with this comment? How could an intelligent woman like our Deputy Prime Minister suddenly declare that this confirms the worst fears of Australian women? Any Australian father, or mother for that matter, with half a brain and half a heart would say exactly the same thing. As Brandis rightly pointed out, Julia Gillard has no children, nor is she a father, and could not possibly imagine how much care and love a father has for his daughters. Nor could she understand how important a father's love and protective care is for their healthy psychosexual development. She hasn't read the facts!

Quoting from the Facts of Fatherlessness (PDF 747KB):
http://www.fatherhood.org.au/resources/FathersinFamiliesLR.pdf

• Studies from many different cultures have found that girls raised without fathers are more like to be sexually active, and to start early sexual activity. Father-deprived girls "show precocious sexual interest, derogation of masculinity and males, and poor ability to maintain sexual and emotional adjustment with one male".


• A US study found that girls who grow up without fathers were "53 per cent more likely to marry as teenagers, 111 per cent more likely to have children as teenagers, 164 per cent more likely to have a premarital birth, and 92 per cent more likely to dissolve their own marriages."


• New Zealand research has found that the absence of a father is a major factor in the early onset of puberty and teenage pregnancy. Dr Bruce Ellis, Psychologist in Sexual Development at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch found that one of the most important factors in determining early menarche is the father: "There seems to be something special about the role of fathers in regulating daughters' sexual development".


• A British study found that girls brought up by lone parents were twice as likely to leave home by the age of 18 as the daughters of intact homes; were three times as likely to be cohabiting by the age of 20; and almost three times as likely to have a birth out of wedlock.

All information about the Family Law and Child Support changes in chronological order

Welcome to Dads in Distress -  Introduction -  News & Events -  Update Info -  Aims -  Objectives -  Information -  Meetings -  Contact Us -  Stories -  Help Us -  Links -  Downloads -  Print Version -  Newsletter -  Forum -  Meeting Point -  Tony's Diary -  Donations -  Volunteers -  Books -  Online Shop -  Search -  Disclaimer -  webdesign by Gabriele Fink © 2006


Dads In Distress is funded by the Australian Federal Government.