|
Fathers' groups have vowed to fight any attempt to roll back shared-care
provisions in family law with plans to form a coalition to lobby the Senate
and marginal electorates.
Responding to government-commissioned reports that were published on
Thursday and pointed to problems with family law reforms of 2006, the
national president of the Lone Fathers' Association, Barry Williams, said:
"If the [Federal] Government intervenes, there'll be a backlash at the
election this year. We can reach probably hundreds of thousands of people."
Fathers' lobby groups were influential in securing passage of the reforms
under the Howard government, using phone and email trees to reach 79,000
people, Mr Williams said.
An evaluation of the reforms by the Australian Institute of Family Studies
found 70 per cent of male and female lawyers surveyed believed they had
favoured fathers over mothers and 62 per cent that they favoured parents'
rights over children's needs. Professionals often said perceptions of the
act had "created fear and apprehension among separated mothers". One senior
member of the bar said "a lot of women are desperate to settle because
they're so frightened of what might happen if they go to court".
The institute also found a significant minority of lawyers and counsellors
believed the reforms had given inadequate priority to protecting children
compared with ensuring they maintained a relationship with both parents.
However, the institute also found that for the majority of families the new
system worked well, especially the network of Family Relationship Centres
that had diverted people from courts. And for the small minority of parents
with shared care, 80 per cent were happy with the arrangement.
A second report on family violence and the family law system by a former
Family Court judge, Richard Chisholm, recommended amending the legislation
to end confusion about parents' rights to shared care.
Tony Miller, the founder of Dads in Distress, said groups had "fought long
and hard" for the act, including the reference to "equal or substantial and
significant" time, and it would be a blow if the reforms were rolled back.
The National Council for Children Post-Separation expressed concern at the
apparent reluctance of the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, to adopt
the recommendations of the Chisholm report. Mr McClelland indicated at a
news conference that the Government favoured education over legal changes.
The council said it felt "vindicated that three separate reviews have
upheld our concerns that the current system is failing children ... parents
have been forced to send their children to abusive and violent parents as
part of court-ordered custody visits".
Its founder, Barbara Biggs, asked what the point was of three big reviews,
if, because of an election year, the Attorney-General ascribed problems to
misunderstanding and appeared to be "whitewashing" the findings.
|
|
