 |
News & Events - January 2005
31 January 2005, Dads on the Air, Grandparents in Distress
Special Guest: Bev Pattenden - Grandparents In Distress
Many grandparents across the country spoke passionately to the inquiry recent government inquiry into child custody and their concerns are a core part of government proposals to reform family law. Many of these deeply hurt people are passionate supporters of joint custody. Thus the quip: it's a brave government that ignores the grannies of Australia!
In Launceston Maria expressed the anguish of many: "I have a question. We have been everywhere, to lawyers and all, trying to get some kind of legal advice on behalf of the grandchild. The girl ran off with him two years ago. We have not seen him since. My son cannot get any help. I do not know who to turn to. We do not know where to turn to. Nobody really gives us any advice. How can we get in contact with him? My son is paying the child support, but he does not know if his son is alive or dead. I really do not know what to do..."
Many spoke strongly of the need for reform. A grandmother, Ann, who had two divorced children, including a son who rarely even got to see his kid on Fathers Day, said: "Children in marriage and partnerships are the emotional and financial responsibility of both parents. Both parents should have joint input into their children's lives. Both parents are responsible for their children's care, wellbeing, education, health and upbringing. Both parents have the need and emotion to give their love, affection and time to their children. Children need this love, affection, contact, discipline and time from each parent equally. If joint parenting was mandatory at divorce or separation, in most cases all these needs would be met and a huge disruption in lives, as experienced in the current family law custody orders, would hopefully be minimal."
The submission from Grandparents in Distress reads:
The whole family law system was introduced by the Labor government under an ideology of Socialism, which takes responsibility from parents and give it to the STATE. From this point of view these policies have continued on and still infiltrate our education system and universities, so much so that if anyone tries to instil alternative views they are belittled and "marked down"' unless the "accepted" views are perpetuated. Any religious or moral ideas based on the bible are regarded as prudish, outdated and mocked, despite the fact that the whole of our society and Constitution is based on the Christian Coronation Oath. Our Queen and all politicians and public servants swear allegiance to be servants of Almighty God.
In our zeal to keep the Church and state separate, we have virtually thrown the baby out with the bath water, to the extent 'that we have slipped into a deep hole of nothingness, a country without any philosophy or ideology, except that of socialism, (which has proven to be unworkable) and ultra capitalism (which is equally unacceptable and detrimental). So, before we can have any solution to problems we
need to come to terms as to what we actually believe and what is good for the survival and good government of our country, leading to some important questions for our society:
"Do we still believe in the institution of marriage"?
"Do we believe that the STATE should replace parents"?
"Do we believe we should financially reward those leaving their spouses"?
"Do we believe that government should reward those having children outside of marriage"?
"Do we believe in the equality of male and females as parents"?
"Do we believe in same sex marriages and their care of children"?
Unless we are prepared to tackle these difficult questions which have arisen in the past 30 years, we cannot solve any problems and are wasting our time.
Read the full editorial or listen to the show at:
http://www.dadsontheair.com/index.php?page=showcomments&id=187
31 January 2005, Cooperative Parenting or Parallel Parenting?
By Philip M. Stahl, Ph.D.
Research on families of divorce suggest that there are primarily three
styles of parenting for families after a divorce: cooperative, conflicted,
or disengaged. Cooperative parenting is the style used by families in which
conflict is low and parents can effectively communicate about their child.
If you determine that your level of conflict is low, you and the other
parent will probably be able to talk about your child's needs in a healthy
way. You will probably agree on most parenting values, be relatively
consistent in your parenting styles, and have few arguments about your
child's life. You will rarely put your child in the middle, and you will
solve differences peacefully. Research shows that children of divorce fare
best when parents can be cooperative in their parenting. If you fall in this
category, you should feel good about yourselves and know that you are
helping your child immensely. There are many good books on cooperative
parenting designed to help parents do a more effective job.
This book focuses on those parents who are in conflict and argue a lot or
need to disengage in their parenting. Even if you can sometimes parent
cooperatively, you find it to be difficult and are in conflict too much of
the time. Conflicted parenting is the worst for children, who are often in
the middle of the conflicts. Your children will adjust to your divorce
easier if you can avoid conflicted parenting. Psychological issues that lead
to conflicted parenting are many, and may include:
- continuation of hostility that began during the marriage
- differing perceptions of pre-separation child-rearing roles
- differing perceptions of post-separation child-rearing roles
- differing perceptions of how to parent concern about the adequacy of the
other parent's parenting ability
- an unwillingness of one or both parents to accept the end of the
relationship
- jealousy about a new partner in the other parent's life
- contested child custody issues
- personality factors in one or both parents that stimulate conflict.
Whatever the specific source, parents' inability to separate their parental
roles from prior conflict in the marriage is often a significant
contribution to the conflict after the divorce. This conflict is perhaps the
most important variable in determining how your child adjusts to your
divorce. Do whatever it takes to change your level of conflict. The first
step in this process is to learn to disengage from the other parent.
Disengagement is one of the possible styles of parenting after divorce. If
you disengage, it's like you have developed a "demilitarized zone" around
your children and have little or no contact with the other parent. When you
disengage, you will avoid contact with the other parent so that conflict
cannot develop. You must do this first to reduce the conflict and before you
can move on to the next style of parenting.
The second step in this process is what I call parallel parenting. In this
style of parenting, both of you will each learn to parent your child
effectively, doing the best job each of you can do during the time you are
with your child. You will continue to disengage from the other parent so
that conflicts are avoided. If you determine that you cannot cooperatively
parent because your level of conflict is moderate or high, disengagement and
parallel parenting is the necessary style of parenting.
Parallel parenting gets its name from a similar concept in children's play.
Research psychologists have observed that young children who play together,
but do not have the skills to interact, engage in a process of parallel
play. If they are in a sandbox together or taking turns going down a slide,
they play next to one another, not with one another. Each child is doing her
own thing with the toys, and generally ignoring the other. When they get
older, they will learn to interact cooperatively and play together.
Similarly, parallel parenting is a process of parenting next to one another
because you are unable to parent together. Before you can learn to
co-parent, you will each learn to parent on your own. The first step of
parallel parenting is disengagement. This means that you will not
communicate about minor things regarding your child. You will not bicker
over things that have always led to conflicts in the past. You will give the
other parent important information about your child, but you will not get
into debates about the parenting plan or about each other's parenting style.
"Important information" means the health, welfare, and interests of your
child. If your child is sick, you will inform the other parent of this fact,
with details on what medication is needed, what has already been
administered, and when the next dose is to be given. If your child has a
school field trip, you will inform the other parent of the details, and use
your parenting plan to decide who might go with the child on the field trip.
Each of you should develop independent relationships with your child's
teachers, doctors, coaches, and friends so that you don't have to rely on
the other parent for your information. Each of you should take turns taking
your child to the doctor and dentist. If you are the parent who receives
your child's report card, copy it and send it to the other parent. Do this
with medical and extra-curricular activity information, such as your child's
little league schedule. Do not complain to the other parent when she is ten
minutes late for an exchange of your child, and don't argue over whose turn
it is to get your child's next haircut. Have parameters in your parenting
plan for some of these things and ignore the rest.
When parents are trying to disengage, but communication is necessary, it is
often best if non-emergency communication is done by mail, fax or e-mail.
Only use faxes if both of you have sufficient privacy where you will receive
the fax. By putting your communication in writing, you will have time to
gather your thoughts and make sure that the tone is not argumentative. This
also lets the receiving parent take some time and gather his thoughts so
that he is not impulsive or angry in his response. Sarcasm is never helpful
when trying to disengage from conflicts. Don't share your e-mails and faxes
with your children; they are simply meant to share important information
between the parents. Try to limit nonemergency communication to twice a
month, except for sharing information that is timesensitive (like faxing a
notice from school to the other parent on the day you receive it).
Obviously, emergency information about illnesses and injuries, unforeseen
delays in visitation (as a result of traffic conditions, for example), or
immediate school concerns should be shared by phone as soon as possible.
However, by reducing general communication, and by putting necessary
communications in writing, you will go a long way toward disengaging from
conflict.
If you have very young children, you know it is important to share all
aspects of your child's functions with the care provider when you drop her
off. In the same way, it is critical for parents to share detailed
information with each other upon the exchange of the child. A useful tool is
a "parent communication notebook." In this notebook you will write down the
highlights of your child's emotions and behaviors during the time she's with
you. Fill out the notebook in great detail and pass it along to the other
parent at the time of transition. Things to include in this notebook are
your observations of your child's health, feeding and sleeping patterns,
language issues, your child's mood, what soothes your child, what upsets
your child, your daily routine, and any other detailed information about
your child's functions and needs. This notebook should stay with your child
so both parents can use it as a forum for preserving thoughts about your
child and her needs.
Another step in parallel parenting is not telling the other parent how to
parent, and ignoring (rather than arguing back) when the other parent tries
to tell you how to parent. Support different styles of parenting in order to
avoid conflict. Obviously, some things are very important, such as
consistent discipline philosophies and techniques, adequate supervision,
giving your child necessary medication, and ensuring that your child gets to
school on time with homework completed. If you have concerns about these
very important issues, you will need a forum for working out your
differences.
There are many things that parents argue about that aren't so important.
Some of this is related to different parenting philosophies and some of it
is related to the difficulty of sharing your child. Accept that there is
more than one "right way" to parent. Learn to be less rigid and more
accepting of your child's other parent. Rather than trying to change how the
other parent does his job of parenting, do your best job of parenting during
the time your child is with you, without criticizing the other parent.
Children are capable of being parented in two different styles, and many
children of divorce adjust quite well to two very different homes. Remember,
just as you will want to avoid criticizing the other parent, you will not
want to deal with criticism of your parenting techniques.
Excerpted from Chapter 2 of Parenting After Divorce (Impact Publishers,
2000).
© Philip M. Stahl, Ph.D.
www.parentingafterdivorce.com/books/parenting.html
29 January 2005, Book available for download, New Maps for Broken Hearted Men
How to Understand and Heal After the End of a Relationship
A Self-Help Guide published by John Hunter Hospital, 2003
Extract from New Maps for Broken Hearted Men:
"The title of this book is addressed to men and I have written it to men,
for men and always with men in mind. My work as a clinical psychologist at
a community health centre has been a big influence on its content. Many men
have consulted me regarding their grief, hurt and turmoil associated with
their broken hearts. They said things to me that made a lasting impression.
Here are just two examples. 'I feel like I'm bleeding inside.' 'The gut-rot
really gets to me.'
"I met so many men who talked about these feelings and their pain and
confusion that I decided to write this book. Although at times there is
some self-conscious humour in these pages, my underlying purpose is
serious. Through this book I am trying to help you heal. "
Glen Wand
Clinical Psychologist and Author
Eastlakes Community Health Centre
www.hunter.health.nsw.gov.au/newmaps/index.htm
29 January 2005, Law On Order - Forum
If you need some help with legal matters...............click on either
sites below and then click on Law on Order
Dads in Distress wish to publicly thank the moderators of 'Law on Order' for
providing a much needed service that should of been there in the first
place, thank you for the courage to provide this service.
Tony Miller Founder Dads in Distress
And the trouble is, if you don't risk anything, you risk even more.....Erica
Jong 1942
http://www.dadsindistress.asn.au/links.html
http://www.nor.com.au/community/dids/information.html
Quote:
" With the birth of Law on Order comes the freedom of choice and
the right to make those decisions free of the chain and fetter of costs.
Lawyers are by and large are an expensive commodity for many to engage in
exercise of their 'Rights' in a free society. Lawyers cost money, a
commodity the people who most need their services can ill afford."
Quote:
"This forum seeks not to provide 'Legal Advice' but to offer a
platform whereby ordinary citizens may now obtain information and the
knowledge required freely, to plan, access and analyse legal problems and
issues prior to instructing a lawyer, if they should decide with
litigation."
Quote:
"The moderators of Law on Order comprise legal practitioners,
professionals from other fields as engineers, town planners, finance and tax
professionals."
Quote:
"We do not claim to offer legal advice. We are merely a
conduit for what we believe you should otherwise be able to access in a
"Free Society" without the burden of prohibitive costs as it presently
exists"
Feel free to post your questions on any subject of the law and have lawyers and academics who moderate the site answer your questions and help you deal with your problems. its free...........
See you at the Forum
Quintin Rozario
29 January 2005
ELVIS IS ALIVE AND IN BRISBANE AND FUNDRAISING FOR DIDS
ELVIS EDWARDS IS APPEARING AT THE PINE RIVERS MEMORIAL BOWLS CLUB
CNR FRANCES & SPARKS RD, BRAY PARK
29th January 2005, 7PM
$12 PER HEAD LUCKY DOOR PRIZE
23 January 2005, The Sunday Times, Shock turn in custody fight
By Nick Taylor
Two Perth children at the centre of an international tug-of-love have been
secretly brought back to WA.
They were whisked quietly into the state this week on the orders of one of
Europe's most powerful courts, three years after being abducted to
Switzerland on false passports by their mother.
The move signals the start of more bitter legal battles that have raged
around the world since the children's father began hunting for his
eight-year-old son and six-year-old daughter.
The mother took the children into hiding as she fought to keep them in her
home country.
Her former husband launched Family Court action in Perth and used The
Hague Convention, international protocol designed to return children to their
country of birth.
The mother was ordered to bring the children back to Perth, but defied the
order.
A year ago, the High Court in Zurich placed them in a children's home.
Then on January 7, two judges went to the home and said they were taking the
children for a walk.
They never returned and kept the youngsters at a secret address before
flying them to Perth on Monday.
They will now stay with foster parents until the custody battle is
settled.
The move has caused uproar in Switzerland, with protests by UNICEF
representatives and some of the country's leading politicians.
The mother, a Swiss national, said from Zurich yesterday: "I'm speechless
about what happened, especially the way the children were treated and lied
to. The judges were lying to me also.
"It is crazy. I can't do anything now.
"They told me the children were happy, but I've been told that I am not
going to be allowed to talk to them.
"At the moment, I have no clue what to do."
The mother, who had regular access to the children, did not say goodbye to
them and is scared of returning to Perth.
She believes she faces a jail sentence for taking the children and defying
court orders.
"There would be no point coming to Perth at the moment," she said. "I
would be thrown into jail and would not get to see the children, anyway. But
there are still lots of legal people working on the case here at the
moment."
The father had been telephoning his children once a week in Zurich,
talking through an interpreter.
He and his partner said yesterday they had been ordered by the court not
to comment.
But 18 months ago, he said that he was living an emotional roller-coaster.
He said he became very emotional when he looked at photographs of the
children, but did not want his former wife punished.
The Department for Community Development confirmed that the children had
been brought back to WA.
A spokesman said the Swiss judicial system returned the two children under
The Hague Convention.
They will remain in the state pending the outcome of an Australian Family
Court custody case.
Department for Community Development executive director Lex McCulloch said
that under a Family Court order, the department had temporary care of the
children and had placed them with foster carers.
He said that a chaperone had accompanied the children to WA from
Switzerland and stayed at the foster carers' home for a few days.
"The department's decision to place the children in foster care while the
court case is being finalised is based on professional advice," Mr
McCulloch said.
"Both parents have been notified that the children are settling in well
and showing no signs of distress.
"Their foster carers have taken them on picnics and visits to the beach
and they are eating and sleeping well.
"Any access to the children by either parent would be highly supervised."
22 January 2005, The Australian, New minority: mum, dad and kids
By Drew Warne-Smith and Natasha Robinson
The nuclear family - its majority status long under threat from social
change - has finally fallen to less than half of all Australian
households.
While still the most common household type, the traditional mix of parents
and at least one child is now only 47per cent -- or 2.3million -- of all
households, an annual snapshot of the nation reveals.
That is a 7per cent decline in a decade, according to the 2005 Year Book
Australia, a report compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
And if present trends continue, the ABS projects that in 20 years fewer
than a third of all households will resemble the nuclear family.
It is sad news for mother-of-five Lorraine van Schie.
"For me, after having had children, to think about someone deciding not to
have them is one of the saddest things I can think of," Mrs van Schie said
at her crowded two-bedroom home in Sydney's northern beaches suburb of
Manly.
"It is hard to explain the dimension of love they bring.
"I just saw my children as a precious gift to give my husband, Hendrik. I
just remember so clearly the first time he held Luke."
In the place of Mrs van Schie's ideal is a boom in single-parent families,
people living alone and empty nesters -- couples whose children have grown
up and flown the coop. And by far the largest, fastest increase of any
family type in the future is tipped to be the couple with no children.
Australia could see an almost 50per cent rise in the number of couples
without kids over the next 20 years, the ABS found.
"This growth is primarily related to the ageing of the population, with
baby-boomers becoming empty nesters, and to a lesser extent (is due) to
delayed family formation and declining fertility of younger couples," the
yearbook says.
Also on the march is the number of gay couples living in de facto
relationships.
The ABS found the number of same-sex couple households has doubled in five
years, from 10,000 in 1996 to 20,000 in 2001, reflecting an increasing
inclination among homosexual couples to declare their status.
The number of single-parent families has surged by 38per cent. In 1991,
there were 552,000 such families; by 2001, there were 763,000.
Recorded at June 30, 2001, the yearbook provides a statistical snapshot of
Australian society and compares us with the way we once were -- and the
society we are likely to become.
In many respects we shouldn't be surprised at the findings. Fertility
rates remain in the basement, divorce remains steady and we're an ageing
population. The modern working couple want children later in life, and one
child is often enough.
21 January 2005, The Age (Melbourne), Provocation defence to be removed
By Farrah Tomazin, State Political Reporter
Victorians on trial for murder will no longer be able to use provocation
as a partial defence to try to get a lighter sentence under sweeping reforms
to be made this year.
The State Government will seek to abolish the controversial provocation
defence during the spring session of Parliament, after the public outcry
last year when it was successfully used in the trial of Melbourne
businessman James Ramage, found guilty of killing his wife, Julie.
Mr Ramage was charged with murder but found guilty of the lesser charge of
manslaughter after a jury accepted that his wife had provoked him into
bashing and strangling her to death with taunts about their sex life.
But under planned legislative changes, provocation will be considered by a
judge only during sentencing. It will no longer be put to a jury. Under
Victorian law, murder carries a maximum penalty of life in jail.
Manslaughter carries a maximum penalty of 20 years' jail.
Acting Premier John Thwaites said yesterday the provocation defence
belonged to a bygone era when community values were different.
"Provocation does tend to lend to a culture where the victim is blamed
rather than the perpetrator," he said.
The change announced yesterday was a central recommendation contained in a
report by the Law Reform Commission, released to the Government last year.
The report also made 55 other recommendations, including the creation of a
new partial defence of excessive self-defence, and the extension of
self-defence to situations where the accused believes an assault was
"inevitable", rather than immediate.
Other recommendations include calls for juries to be allowed to listen to
hearsay evidence of a history of family violence, and for a new crime of
duress, where the accused has killed someone because their own life is
threatened.
Attorney-General Rob Hulls said yesterday the provocation defence allowed
killers to "get away with murder". He said the Government was still
considering what other recommendations may also be legislated later this
year.
Julie Ramage's sister, Jane Ashton, welcomed the changes yesterday. She
said her sister's death had exposed the flaws of the provocation defence.
But not everyone has supported the Government's decision. The Criminal Bar
Association recently warned that the move could disadvantage women charged
with killing abusive partners, and mean they might be convicted of murder
rather than manslaughter.
Association member Phillip Priest, QC, said empirical evidence had shown
women were very successful when invoking the provocation defence, and that
they would be the "great losers" of the change.
19 January 2005, The Courier-Mail, MPs' food stamp plan to wipe out dole abuse
By Fleur Anderson
Long-term unemployed people and stay-at-home mums are the targets of a
group of Coalition MPs pushing Prime Minister John Howard to deliver tax
cuts.
Australia's 530,000 unemployed would be weaned off welfare by replacing
the dole with food stamps and utility credits that could not be spent on
gambling, alcohol or cigarettes under a new plan to be unveiled this
weekend.
Liberal Member for the Gold Coast Steve Ciobo will push for the plan at a
Young Liberal and National Convention in Hobart on Sunday.
He said not all unemployed spent money on discretionary items like
cigarettes and gambling, but slashing welfare cash would encourage more
people into the workforce.
"I want to stress I am not advocating welfare cuts," Mr Ciobo said.
"It would be a change in the form of payments."
The cash-for-food-stamps plan would impose a time limit on the traditional
unemployment benefit, for example two years.
After the time elapsed, unemployed people would lose the right to spend
the benefits as they saw fit.
Mr Ciobo said the Federal Government would allow for the fact that a
certain percentage of unemployed people would never get jobs and retain
the full cash benefit.
With Australia's unemployment rate at 5.1 per cent, Mr Ciobo said there
was little reason for some long-term unemployed people to remain out of work.
Government coffers are expected to be bursting with an $18 billion surplus
over three years after July 1 when the Coalition gains control of the
Senate.
The group, numbering 25 Coalition backbenchers, believes Australia's
prosperity makes it an ideal time to overhaul the tax system, and will
hand its blueprint to Treasurer Peter Costello in the second half of this year.
At least two federal ministers, Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews
and Workforce Participation Minister Peter Dutton, appeared sympathetic to
the backbench plan.
Mr Dutton said earlier this week the tax system discouraged some people
from entering the workforce.
He said the Government was considering extra workplace training and an
early phasing out of parenting payments to stay-at-home mums.
Parents can receive parenting payments until their youngest child reaches
13 years, which Mr Dutton said was one of "the most relaxed requirements"
in the developed world.
Under Centrelink rules, single parents can claim up to $490 a fortnight
and parents with partners $356 a fortnight.
When the child turns six, the parents are asked to attend an "annual
participation interview" to discuss returning to work, and when the child
turns 13 parents must attempt to find part-time work.
As well as tax, workplace relations needed to be overhauled, particularly
to get disabled people back to work.
"A lot of employers see them (people with disabilities) as a high risk,"
Mr Dutton said.
"There is a need for further reform and I support that."
17 January 2005, Article of the week from Michigan Lawyers Weekly:
Grandparent Visitation Law Back On The Books Provides Recourse When Visitation Is Denied
By Todd C. Berg
Grandparents who have been denied visitation with their
grandchildren can once again turn to the courts for help in their
efforts to reunite.
According to the recently reenacted grandparenting statute,
grandparents may, under certain, limited circumstances, be
permitted "grandparenting time" with their grandchildren where it
has otherwise been denied by the grandchildren's parents.
Under the new law - Public Act 542 of 2004 which amends Sect.
722.27b of the Child Custody Act - before a grandparenting order can
be entered, the grandparent must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that visitation is in the child's best interests and that
denial of visitation may harm the child's health.
Dubbed the "grandparent visitation bill," the new law is widely
viewed as the Legislature's response to DeRose v. DeRose, where the
Michigan Supreme Court, in a 6-1 decision, struck down the state's
previous grandparenting statute that had been in effect since 1982.
Sen. Alan Sanborn, R-Richmond, who sponsored Senate Bill 727, which
would ultimately become Public Act 542, explained that even though
the parent-child relationship is paramount, grandparents can and
should play a prominent role in children's lives.
"To deprive a grandchild of the opportunity to bond with his or her
grandparents is an incredible hardship, not just to the
grandparents, but to the grandchild as well," Sanborn
stated. "Grandparents are a tremendously stabilizing influence,
sometimes the best thing a kid's got going on in his or her life."
Bloomfield Hills attorney and founder of the national Grandparent
Rights Organization Richard S. Victor agreed, and praised the new
grandparenting time law for its protection of the vital relationship
that exists between grandchild and grandparent.
"It has everything to do with children's rights to have a
relationship with their grandparents," Victor
declared. "Grandparents offer unconditional love to a child. They
can provide the child with the stability and security they need to
lead healthy and happy lives."
But Rochester attorney Elizabeth A. Sadowski, past chair of the
State Bar's Family Law Section, said she still has doubts about the
need for and propriety of a grandparenting law.
"Parents are perfectly capable of making decisions as to whom their
children should associate with without having to have a law
directing them as to when and how grandparents can see their
grandchildren," Sadowski observed.
Protection For Parents
Although grandparent visitation has been criticized for interfering
with parents' rights to raise their children and make decisions
about whom they will visit, Victor - a driving force behind the
grandparent visitation bill and a champion of grandparents' rights
for 30 years - stressed that the new statute provides ample
protection for parents' rights.
"If you have an intact family, then the law does not apply," he
explained. "Only when there is a death, divorce or a birth out of
wedlock does the law apply."
Moreover, he noted that when two fit parents - married, divorced, or
never married - decide to deny visitation, the grandparent won't
even be able to get his or her case into court.
Rep. Edward Gaffney, R-Grosse Pointe, a member of the SB 727
conference committee and sponsor of House Bill 5039 which initially
proposed reenactment of the grandparenting statute but was later
incorporated into SB 727 - agreed, adding that not only are there
the limits mentioned by Victor, but grandparents now have a burden
of proof they did not have under the old statute which they must
overcome before the court can order visitation.
"Grandparents must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
it's in the best interests - mentally, physically, and emotionally -
of the child that they see their grandparents," Gaffney stated. "To
me, that's fair because there should be standards. They shouldn't
automatically have a right to visitation."
According to Victor, Michigan's statute goes far beyond what either
the Michigan Supreme Court in DeRose or the U.S. Supreme Court in
Troxel v. Granville said was necessary to protect parents'
constitutional rights.
"By requiring grandparents to prove that the parent's decision about
visitation creates a risk of harm to the child's mental, physical or
emotional health, the Legislature is holding them to a higher burden
than either DeRose or Troxel required," he asserted.
Burden Of Proof
Rep. Jim Howell, R-St. Charles, a member of the SB 727 conference
committee and past chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said the
burden of proof was a hot topic within the committee and may have
been the principal obstacle that kept the law from being presented
sooner to the House and Senate, where it was ultimately approved
without objection from either house.
"There were some who felt very strongly about using the 'clear and
convincing' standard, but a majority of us felt that 'clear and
convincing' would make the burden impossible to meet," Howell
recalled. "You would never see [a grandparenting time petition]
granted. It would be an illusory right."
The representative, who was term-limited out last session, explained
that even though the conference committee had reached an impasse on
the burden of proof issue, they were eventually able to find common
ground.
"In the end, the compromise was that the burden of proof would be
preponderance of the evidence, but there would also be
a 'substantial risk of harm' standard," Howell stated.
Sanborn, who initially favored the 'clear and convincing' burden,
emphasized that the committee's compromise bill contained one
additional twist.
"We have a fallback provision so that if the Supreme Court
determines that 'preponderance' is not enough to satisfy the
constitution, then the burden would move up to 'clear and
convincing,' he said. "That's a nice feature we put into the
compromise so as to almost ensure that the Supreme Court will be
satisfied."
According to the "fallback provision," if an appellate court
determines that "preponderance of the evidence" is unconstitutional,
then "a grandparent filing a complaint or motion under this section
must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent's
decision to deny grandparenting time creates a substantial risk of
harm to the child's mental, physical, or emotional health .."
Sadowski said she thinks it will be put to the test.
"This is a constitutional relationship that the court is being asked
to invade," she stated. "I don't think one can do that on a mere
preponderance. I think it's going to take the 'clear and convincing'
burden of proof."
Nevertheless, Sadowski praised the Legislature for its inclusion of
the "substantial risk of harm" standard, adding that "without it, it
would have been a terrible bill."
Mills agreed that a constitutional challenge would not come as a
surprise.
"I think it could very easily be a successful challenge," he
ventured. "That's probably why the [fallback provision] is in
there."
Open The Floodgates?
But given the hurdles grandparents face under the new statute, Mills
said he does not expect a flood of litigation anytime soon.
"They have to prove somehow that the child is being harmed by not
seeing the grandparent," Mills said. "You can't just go into court
and say, 'My grandson is being harmed because I can't see him.'
You've got to have more than that, which means probably employing
experts and psychologists, getting examinations done and reports
made - and all that tends to be expensive. I think expense will tend
to hold down litigation."
Victor agreed there would be no flood of new litigation, but for
different reasons.
"Statutes like this don't create new lawsuits," he explained. "What
they do create is the right to bring them, which means you can force
people to talk. The threat of litigation gets people to talk. It
gets them to the table."
Victor even went as far as to suggest that attorneys actually
litigating a grandparent visitation case may have already "lost."
"The last place these things will be resolved is in a court or in a
trial," Victor declared. "In 30 years, I've tried 10 - maybe not
even 10 cases - but I have handled thousands. You don't try these
cases. You settle them and you reunite families."
'Grandparenting Time' Revisited
Under the new statute, grandparents have standing to request a
grandparenting order when:
-
the grandchild's parents have a pending divorce case or have been
divorced;
-
the grandchild's "parent who is a child of the grandparents is
deceased";
-
the grandchild's parents were never married but paternity has been
established;
-
the grandchild is in the legal custody of someone other than his
or her parent; and
-
during the past year, the grandparent has provided "an established
custodial environment" for the grandchild.
Standing under the old statute arose only with the death of the
child's parent or during the time that a custody dispute involving
the child was pending.
Once standing has been established, in order to overcome a fit
parent's decision to deny visitation, the grandparent must establish
by a preponderance of the evidence that denial of visitation with
their grandchild "creates a substantial risk of harm to the child's
mental, physical, or emotional health."
Finally, the grandparents must convince the court that a
grandparenting order is in the best interests of the grandchild.
Origins of the new statute can be traced back to the Supreme Court's
DeRose decision in 2003 where the court - based on precedent from
the U.S. Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville - struck down
Michigan's previous grandparenting statute for allowing courts to
order grandparent visitation on the basis of nothing more than
a "best interests" finding.
Justice Clifford Taylor wrote that Michigan's statute was
constitutionally deficient because "it fail[ed] to require that a
trial court accord deference to the decisions of fit parents
regarding grandparent visitation."
In her concurrence, Justice Elizabeth Weaver fleshed out what she
thought might amount to constitutionally sufficient "deference" by
suggesting that the Legislature revise its grandparent visitation
statute to:
-
include "a presumption that fit parents act in the
best interests of their children";
-
afford "special weight" to a
parent's decision regarding visitation; and
-
place the burden of
proof on the grandparents.
17 January 2005, Dads on the Air, The Future of the Family Court
Special Guest: Diana Bryant - Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia
We are delighted to have Diana Bryant, the new Chief Justice of the Family Court, on our first program for 2005. Some battle scarred family law reformers are going so far as to call her "a breath of fresh air".
It is commonly said her predecessor Alastair Nicholson, one of the most despised and most controversial figures in Australian judicial history, left the court in a shambles and its reputation in tatters. But oddly enough, the widespread animosity in the Australian community towards the Family Court is not attracting to Diana Bryant herself.
Even her critics describe her as an immensely personable, charming, capable, professional and very decent person. While we simply do not agree with her claim that the court is not biased against men, and we remain critical of many of the court's processes, the very fact that the Chief Justice came on to our show, and gave generously of her time in this 40 minute interview, indicates there is a sea-change occurring in the approach to fathers issues.
Read the full editorial or listen to the show at:
http://www.dadsontheair.com/index.php?page=showcomments&id=186
14 January 2005, The Courier-Mail (Brisbane), Kiwis run up child-support default bill
New Zealanders living in Australia owe more than $NZ110 million ($102
million) in child-support payments at home, figures show.
The New Zealand Government said the figure represented a 50 per cent
increase in only one year - an increase it attributed to the identification
of payment dodgers who had previously gone unnoticed.
Official figures show there were 5197 liable New Zealand parents living in
Australia owing $NZ113 million in child support and penalties in NZ as of
last October. This was 53 per cent higher than the $NZ73 million owed a
year earlier.
Associate Revenue Minister David Cuncliffe said a reciprocal agreement with
Australia to trace delinquent parents began in 2000 under the Labour
government, a development that led to the explosion in cases uncovered.
"A large part of that growth is due to our increased efforts in tracking
and booking what debt is owed," he said.
Under the trans-Tasman arrangement, child-welfare agencies in Australia and
New Zealand chase up payment-dodging expatriates on each other's behalf.
Mr Cuncliffe said the amount of payments and fines retrieved had doubled
each year since the arrangement began, reaching $NZ5.6 million last year.
"The Government's top priority is getting money for kids that need it and
deserve it," he said. "It may have been historically that there was a view
that it was harder to be chased in Australia . . . that will be a mistake
in view of anybody (who) still holds it."
But Opposition welfare spokeswoman Katherine Rich said Mr Cuncliffe should
also explain why only 3633 of the 5197 liable parents had been referred to
Australia's Child Support Agency.
"The Government is letting 1564 child-support dodgers living in Australia
walk away from their responsibilities owing more than $NZ20 million ," she
said.
Mr Cuncliffe said it was not practical to pursue all cases because some
were too old and some amounts too small.
13 January 2005, Philadelphia Daily News (US), No longer a couple, but still a family
By Lini S. Kadaba, Inquirer Staff Writer
Mom and Dad have split, perhaps remarried, yet come together for the
children. It's the brave new world of friendly divorce.
When 8-year-old Sydney competes in horse shows, jumping fences as if they
were speed bumps, her parents, Lisa and Jim Bennett, are right there to
cheer - sitting side by side in the stands.
The Bennetts also have attended church together, gone to holiday dinners
together, vacationed down the Shore together.
Typical family fare, except all of that has happened since the Chester
County couple separated more than three years ago and divorced last year.
Instead of enemies, they are friends.
Like the Bennetts, a growing number of split couples are choosing to stick
tight, spending significant days - and even more mundane moments -
together, as a family. Some invite new partners along.
Such are the ways of friendly divorces. No ad nauseam arguments over child
pickup schedules or who will attend what with whom.
For a couple marrying in recent years, the lifetime probability of divorce
or separation averages close to 50 percent. There are few statistics on
marriages that end amicably, but anecdotally, sociologists and other
experts say the phenomenon is growing.
"Everything is pointing to it," said divorce expert Constance Ahrons, a
research scholar at the Council on Contemporary Families, who wrote last
year's We're Still Family.
Credit might go to mediation, no-fault divorce laws, joint custody, and
involved mothers and fathers, who want to stay that way.
"It's a different kind of divorce," said Stephanie Brooks, interim
director of a Drexel University program in couple and family therapy.
Family life often can seem just like before, what with Mom and Dad
together at birthday parties, recitals, Passover, graduations, holiday barbecues,
family meals. Well, nearly. Without marital issues looming large, close
encounters can be more pleasant than ever.
"It's almost healthier," said Paula Wengerd, 48, who lives in Cherry Hill
and regularly sees ex-husband Joe Briglia at family affairs. "We can
really enjoy the time we spend with our children."
Marriages don't have to end as bitterly as a Kim Basinger-Alec Baldwin
split, according to Eileen Schanel Klitsch, director of psychological
services at Doylestown-based Alpha Center for Divorce Mediation. "You can
still be friends," she said. "That general concept is starting to take
hold."
It may raise eyebrows among friends and family, but the friendly divorce
is here to stay in what some experts are calling a sea change.
"What we're seeing is this attitudinal shift that has taken 20 years,"
Ahrons said.
One sign of that shift is an increase in mediation, in which a neutral
third party negotiates a divorce, often leading to an amicable divide. The
Alpha Center, for one, has grown to 10 locations in the region with plans
to expand into New York.
In divorces involving children, 13 states mandate mediation, except in
domestic violence cases, and 24 others, including Pennsylvania and New
Jersey, allow judges to order it on a case-by-case basis, according to
Andrew Schepard, director of the Center for Children, Families and the Law
at Hofstra Law School.
"The culture is slowly changing," he said. "It's been dramatic."
Books and Web sites (yourfriendlydivorce.com, for example) on the subject
abound. Ex-etiquette for Parents: Good Behavior After a Divorce or
Separation, out since fall, was written by Jann Blackstone-Ford and her
husband's ex-wife, Sharyl Jupe.
"People are told more and more, 'Don't go the adversarial route,' " Ahrons
said.
Those giving that advice include family therapists. A generation ago,
divorce was defined by combativeness, right down to therapists who were
trained to create boundaries between ex-spouses. "It was as though they
didn't have any connection at all," Drexel's Brooks said. "Now, there's
less of an emphasis on pulling families apart."
Gregg Rinedoller of Northeast Philadelphia and Jennifer Ward of Hatboro -
both 39 - credit Alpha with keeping post-divorce peace, which has
continued through remarriages. Rinedoller, Ward and their spouses attend "countless
family events," he said. His daughter's choir concert was on both
calendars recently. "I can't say the word amiable enough."
At the same time, none of this is easy. Significant others "sort of expect
the divorce to end the relationship," Ward said, "but it doesn't when you
have kids."
Even as therapists welcome friendly divorces, they urge exes to proceed
with caution. "Kids always harbor this dream that parents will get back
together," Klitsch said. "You want to keep boundaries clear even when
sharing soccer games or holiday dinners. I tell parents to treat each
other as business colleagues."
Alan Scolnick, 48, of Abington, said he wanted a friendly divorce because
he had seen friends take the more traditional adversarial path and end up
"miserable people."
In the two years since his divorce, Scolnick said, he has spent holidays,
including Christmas, with his ex-wife, Kathie, also 48, and their three
grown children. His girlfriend has been invited to join, he said.
On Halloween, the Bennetts, along with Jim's girlfriend, went
trick-or-treating in his Exton neighborhood.
"Because Jim and I are no longer together doesn't mean her [Sydney's] life
should suffer," said Lisa Bennett, 40, who lives in Malvern.
So much family togetherness can bring on wistfulness. "There's not a day
that goes by that I don't think how the heck did this happen," she said.
"We're able to work around so many things."
Last month, Briglia, Wengerd and Wengerd's husband celebrated with others
the college graduation of Briglia's and Wengerd's daughter.
"In a lot of ways," Wengerd said, "we're still a family."
Both attend their son's baseball games. "I like the thought that he can
glance over and see both of us proximate to each other enjoying him," said
Briglia, 49, of Cherry Hill.
Nancy Hawn, a partner at the South Jersey Mediation Center based in Cherry
Hill, applauded friendly divorces such as the Briglias', who were clients,
but she emphasized, "not everybody can do that."
For many, life after divorce is as volatile as a ruptured gas line, making
even a simple phone call a most uncivil experience.
And so entrepreneur John Matalon, a London Britain Township supervisor,
offers Ez3PC, or Easy Third Party Communication. The new messaging service
for divorced couples promises to convey words - barring profanity,
violence and the like - between exes.
"We're a middle ground," he said. "We provide a cooling-down period. We
don't want to eliminate communication."
Friendly Divorces
How have you, or your ex or your friends and extended family, contributed
to your "friendly divorce"? What factors have contributed to keeping
things amiable? What are the challenges? What advice do you have for others
facing similar circumstances?
Send your essays of 200 to 300 words, with your address and telephone
number, by Jan. 21 to Voices/Divorce, The Inquirer, Box 41705,
Philadelphia 19101. Send e-mail to voices@phillynews.com or faxes to 215-854-4483.
Questions? Call Kevin Ferris, Voices editor, at 610-701-7644 or send
e-mail to kferris@phillynews.com
13 January 2005, Globe and Mail (Canada), Court to rule on link between custody, support
By Kirk Makin, Justice Reporter
The last thing Joanne Contino expected after she increased her ex-husband's access to their son was to see a judge slash her child-support payments.
The dramatic reduction, to just over $50 a month from $563 a month, was
meant to reflect a shift of parental responsibility toward her husband,
Joseph Contino. Instead, the case has sent a shudder of concern through
the family law bar and illustrates a growing state of confusion surrounding
joint-custody arrangements.
The Ontario Superior Court decision has also cast doubt on a hard-fought
set of 1997 federal guidelines aimed at producing predictable results for
separating parents, an aspect the Supreme Court of Canada is bound to
focus on when it hears an appeal of the case tomorrow.
In short, the court will consider whether an increase in access time
mandates a reduction in child support - a notion that has been dubbed
"days for dollars."
"It is fundamentally wrong to link custody and support," Mrs. Contino
states in a brief filed by her lawyers, MacDonald & Partners, LLP. The
brief warns that single mothers and children will inevitably be those who
suffer most from such a trend.
According to Toronto family-law expert Nicole Tellier, the Supreme Court's
ruling in this case will affect a great many couples whose children spend
substantial time with each parent. Depending on the result, she said, a
substantial number of ex-spouses could begin returning to the courts to
alter support payments.
"In a society where more mothers are working outside the home, and many
parents have successive relationships and families, shared parenting
arrangements are increasingly common," Ms. Tellier said in an interview
yesterday.
The Toronto couple at the centre of the case were married in 1982 and had
one son in 1986. They separated in 1989 and were divorced in 1993.
Under a separation agreement, Mrs. Contino got primary custody of the boy.
Mr. Contino had access to him on alternate weekends and Thursday nights.
In 2000, Mr. Contino's access was increased by four evenings a month to
accommodate his former wife, who had enrolled in an evening class. Mr.
Contino then won a motion before the Ontario Superior Court to reduce his
support payments on the basis that he was caring for his son almost half
the time.
When Mrs. Contino appealed, the Ontario Court of Appeal split the
difference. It decided that the new amount Mr. Contino should pay was $339
per month.
"A parent was not meant to be compensated for spending time with a child,"
Mrs. Contino's brief argues.
However, a lawyer for Mr. Contino, Tom Bastedo, argues in a responding
brief that federal guidelines quite rightly entitle a parent who shares
custody at least 40 per cent of the time to pay less child support.
After hearing oral arguments, the Supreme Court is likely to reserve its
ruling for several months.
13 January 2005, Deutsche Welle (Germany), Fathers' Rights Suffer Setback
By Deanne Corbett, DW-WORLD.DE
German politicians seeking to outlaw secret paternity tests won a first
battle on Wednesday, much to the disappointment of fathers' rights groups
hoping for greater justice in the areas of alimony and child support.
The German Federal Court of Justice decided on Wednesday that paternity
tests carried out in secret are inadmissible as evidence in a lawsuit.
Unless the mother gave her consent for the test, the child's personal
rights would be violated, the court in Karlsruhe ruled.
The decision was welcomed by German Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries, who
is leading a campaign to make secret paternity tests illegal under a new
law regulating the use of genetic data.
"These tests are a serious invasion of the private sphere," Zypries said.
"If a man has doubts about his paternity, he should talk about this with
the mother."
Campaigners for fathers' rights in Germany say making secret paternity
tests punishable would be yet another blow to men who already get the short
end of the stick when it comes to laws regulating alimony, child support,
and child custody following a divorce or separation.
"It cannot be that, as a woman, I have the right to make my husband pay to
support a child that is not his own, or to deny children the right to know
who their real father is," said Dr. Karin Jäckel, an active supporter of
the fathers' rights movement and author of several books on the subject.
"Men are, in every respect, held responsible for their children under our
laws, which is why they have the right to know who their children are."
Modernizing alimony
While the battle over paternity tests continues, Justice Minister Zypries
has also announced an overhaul of German laws on alimony. Divorced dads are
hopeful that the changes will mean more justice for them.
The growing fathers' rights movement in Germany rejects the stereotype of
the heartless man who abandons his family for a new relationship. In
reality, they say, the situation is very different. Women file for divorce
more frequently than men, and are more often awarded custody of the
children.
And in cases where a divorce is contested, fathers frequently become
estranged from their children, making it harder for fathers to gain custody
rights once the divorce is settled, Jäckel said.
Despite this emotional strain, fathers are still seen as the familial
breadwinner, and can often find themselves burdened for life with child
support and alimony payments to ex-wives.
"In cases where the man earns a lot and can pay for everyone, there's no
problem. But we're seeing more frequently that the man's income isn't
enough for everyone," Zypries said in an interview with the women's
magazine Brigitte. Ideally, she said, both partners would take financial
responsibility for themselves after a divorce.
"A man can't be expected to support his ex-wife for years, especially if
she could go back to work, and as a consequence not have the money to
support children from a second marriage," she said.
Lack of political reaction
But Jäckel said that those closely involved with the fathers' rights
movement are skeptical that their concerns will be heeded by politicians.
Unlike in Britain, where the activist group Fathers 4 Justice has
successfully attracted attention to the plight of divorced dads through
spectacular stunts, campaigns by similar German groups have "barely
registered politically," Jäckel said, adding that ploys aimed at grabbing
media attention can make a desperate father's situation even worse.
"I've often seen it happen here that fathers who go to the media to
publicize their cases are punished by the judges," she said. "In the worst
case, this can even result in their custody rights being taken away. The
judges' logic is that dragging a case of unfair treatment into the public
eye only damages the child's rights, and that someone who would do this is
a bad father."
13 January 2005, Suicide Prevention Australia - consultation
By Tony Miller Dads in Distress
Dear All,
I have received this information (see below) today the 13th January. It says they stop consulting 17th January. How fair dinkum are these studies when father's groups who are at the coalface of suicide intervention are told of these studies 5 days before they close. It is obvious to us that
Suicide Prevention Australia either has it's head buried in the sand or is somehow frightened of the real truth and that is we are in the middle of an epidemic of male suicide in this country and have been for some time and that the majority of male suicides are as a result of relationship
breakdown. But as usual with notification when it's too b.......late to do any real good, I mean, do you people really want the answers or are you just going through the process to keep yourself in a job.
You know we are there, you know the type of work we do, you know there are many father's groups out there, some that have been at the coalface for over 30 years. You must be hearing the same stuff from the multitude of health care workers, Men's support workers, Area health reps and so on. And yet do you consult the very groups that are at the coalface. NO, you announce a study, very quietly and give us 5 days to reply, pretty much the same m/o as you do with suicide prevention funding. We normally find out when it's closed or when there are a few days left to submit,
therefore it's normally too late to submit.
Suicide Prevention Australia, no Suicide Whitewash Australia would be a more
apt name.
5 MALES SUICIDE EVERY DAY IN THIS COUNTRY!
Am I an angry male, yes I am, when it comes to losing 5 of my brothers EVERY DAY in this country. And we have been for at least the past 5 years that I have been crowing about it.
Have I heard from Suicide Prevention Australia? Not Once!
We have a divorce EVERY 10 minutes in this country and that's just the registered ones, add defactos and at a guess 1 every 30 seconds. Thousands of men, dads being denied their own blood, their children, being sold out by hungry lawyers, losing most of their assets, being hounded for support for children they are denied of even seeing. The daily bouts of depression and angst as they desperately try to hold on to a relationship with children who are used as pawns in a deadly game. The pure desperateness of your situation. The loneliness, the pain in the pit of your stomach. The decision to fight on or walk away. Separation Grief and the plight of the every once in while dad syndrome, Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), Hostile Aggressive Parenting (HAP).
If you want a study, work with us, work with Lone Fathers, work with the Shared Parenting Council or the myriad of men's/dads groups out there. Find out what it's like to have your children stripped from you, find out what being fatherless is about. Find out if this makes you suicidal. Find out the truth....... And Consult with the people who deal in it day in day out. In
other words get your heads out of the sand or proclaim to one and all that this is just another whitewash...............
As I am away until the 25th...... Please send them your stories, maybe
someone will listen!!
Thanks
Tony Miller Founder Dads in Distress
Suicide Prevention Australia - consultation
But you have to act quickly
Professor John Macdonald, Gillian Sliwka and Abdul Monaem of MHIRC are
doing some initial studies in Male suicide. Most people know that the
demographic most at risk is men 25-44 in most countries, including
Australia, yet little has been done in terms of researching the "why" of
this worrying phenomenon. They ask if anyone has done or knows of useful
studies or work to get in touch with Professor Macdonald on
j.macdonald@uws.edu.au
They also tell us that Suicide Prevention Australia is undertaking a
strategic review. This is an opportunity for those of us concerned about
the unacceptable rates of male suicide to do something to ensure that that
the nation gives at least the same attention to men and possible causes of
suicide as has been given to adolescent suicide.
SPA have employed a consulting firm to seek suggestions, they stop
consulting on 17th January 2005 so to bring the issue of male suicide and
the neglect of this issue to their attention please act NOW.
Information on the review and how to respond is available from the
website:
http://www.suicidepreventionaust.org/corp_seeking2.php
Dads In Distress is funded by the Australian Federal Government.
|
|
Back to www.dadsindistress.asn.au
