|
Alby Schultz MP argues that there are serious flaws with existing shared
parenting arrangements.
The concept of shared parenting by separated or divorced couples was a
basis for family law reforms in 2006.
Recently the Rudd Labor Government commissioned a series of reports on the
shared parenting law introduced by the former Howard Government.
The report was ordered 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 a year ago.
The Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) report is by far the most
comprehensive and scientific of the three reports presented on shared
parenting. Its prevailing theme is that these reforms have generally worked
well and have been well received. It does, however, detect substantial room
for improvement in terms of dealing with family violence, which, given the
dysfunctional status of the lives of some users of the system, will
probably always exist. It does not suggest, though, there is any evidence
that the reforms have exposed children to a greater risk of violence or
other harm.
There are a number of findings as to the beneficial effects of the reforms
including the significantly reduced number of filings in children's
matters, in particular, which should result in speedier and more dedicated
access for the less tractable and more worrying cases.
Retired Family Court Judge, Professor Richard Chisholm, in his report
entitled The Chisholm Report, appears to advance a certain agenda. His
criticism of the 'friendly parent' provision for instance, is not
identified with adverse outcomes by the AIFS report and is dismissed as
mere 'gossip' by the Family Law Council.
While identifying the twin primary focuses of shared responsibility and
family violence, he takes a firm position in favour of one specific gender.
His recommendation is that family violence should be effectively presumed
in all parenting cases before the Courts, which apart from introducing an
unhealthy suggestiveness into the process; would undo much of the
efficiency achieved by the 2006 reforms.
The most concerning aspect of the Family Law Council report is the
recommendation to dramatically widen the definition of family violence.
In dealing with the particular issue which Professor Chisholm addressed -
that is the incidents of violence - the AIFS found that "There is no
evidence to suggest that family violence and highly conflictual
inter-parental relationships are any greater in children with shared care
time than for children with other care time arrangements."
So, there seems to be something of a difference of emphasis, if not a
conflict, between Professor Chisholm and the AIFS.
I am certainly of the view that the release of these reports should not be
used by the Rudd Labor Government as a pretext or an excuse to walk away
from the principle that every child has a right to a meaningful
relationship with both parents on the occasion of family breakdown, while
always maintaining, as has never been in doubt, the paramount interests of
the child as the first consideration.
The Chisholm Report has also angered men's rights groups, who believe that
shared parenting works well for the majority of couples who enter into such
an arrangement. That view is supported by the AIFS which found
overwhelmingly that 80% of people surveyed (during the compilation of its
report) said they supported shared parenting and 70% of couples who were in
a shared parenting arrangement said it was working well.
I personally believe many instances of family upheaval resulting in
violence against children which invariably in some cases ends up before the
Courts, could be averted by a simple shake up in the child support system
as administered by the Child Support Agency (CSA).
The overwhelming similarity in cases that are brought to my attention is
that even though a separated couple have entered into a shared parenting
agreement, there is no recognition of this fact by the CSA in calculating
the maintenance that is to be payed by the paying parent.
This is evidenced by reports from paying parents that when their children
visit with them, they regularly arrive with no clothes, other than those in
which they arrive, and reports from the children to their father that they
need these clothes for school or for sport. This triggers conflict and
instability within the shared parenting agreement.
Is it not surprising then, why a father continually questions where his
maintenance is going when it is plainly obvious that it is not being spent
on what it is intended for and why, in some sensitive cases, the father
becomes so disillusioned and distressed by the continual aggressive tactics
employed by the CSA with respect to the collection of his child
maintenance, that a tragedy sometimes occurs.
There is, therefore, an argument for how child maintenance is apportioned
and I dare say that if the paying parent was able to direct and observe
through CSA administration, a certain percentage of their payment go into a
trust account specifically designed to ensure child maintenance is used for
the daily and future care of the child, these extreme cases may reduce.
I hasten to add that it may also result in a significant reduction in
instances of paying parents refusing to honour child maintenance payments,
thereby taking much of the tension out of shared parenting.
Alby Schultz MP is the Federal Liberal Member for Hume.
|
|
