Dads in Distress Inc

Phone: 1300 853 437
Email: dids@nor.com.au
Internet: www.dadsindistress.asn.au
Postal Address: PO Box J395, Coffs Harbour Jetty, NSW 2450, Australia

30 September 2005, More information about family law reforms

The Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, gave a speech on 29 September 2005 to the Family Services Australia 2005 National Conference in Adelaide in which he outlined the role of the Family Relationship Centres, a key part of the Australian Government's family law reform package.
In the speech the Attorney-General said that more detailed information about the Family Relationship Centres would be available on a new website.
The new website is www.ag.gov.au/familywww.ag.gov.au/family, where you can also find a copy of the Attorney-General's speech.
An updated version of the information paper on the Family Relationship Centres has been placed on the web site at 5pm today.
Any comments or questions on the Information Paper can be emailed to familylawreforms@ag.gov.au

30 September 2005, The Herald Sun, Why working wives wander
Bettina Arndt

GONE are the days when a man would dare boast he preferred a wife at home, barefoot and pregnant.
The New Age man is expected to delight in his spouse slipping on her stilettos and heading for the office.
That's just fine -- provided he can hang on to her.
There's the rub. The problem is the office is proving to be the new home-wrecker.
When a wife hangs up her apron and heads for the workplace, the chance of the marriage ending dramatically increases.
That's the news from the latest in a series of studies linking married women working to rising divorce rates.
Working women are more than three times as likely to be divorced than their stay-at-home counterparts, according to recent research published in the European Sociological Review.
And the longer hours women work, the more likely they are to be divorced.
So what's this all about?
Perhaps the culprit is sexual temptation, with the stay-at-home wives offered slim pickings, with only their local butcher and the occasional washing machine repair man to lead them astray.
Women in the workplace are often surrounded by men. Business lunches slide into non-business lunches.
Working late leads to happy hours and then extra happy hours.
Certainly affairs are part of the story. Dr Geoff Carter from Griffith University recently surveyed 400 managers in Queensland and NSW and found almost 70 per cent had had an office fling, nearly a third with colleagues who were married or in long-term relationships.
Married women having affairs spells real trouble for the marriage.
Men who have extramarital sex often see themselves as happily married. "It didn't mean a thing," they plead when caught out.
And they mean it. Their emotional investment is often still in the marriage, even when they can't keep their pants zipped.
But married women are more likely to be tempted when all is not well at home.
THIS means a woman's affair tends to be led by the heart, making it far more threatening to the marriage.
So put unhappily married women into the workplace, surround them by men and red lights start flashing.
Working with co-workers of the opposite sex increases the divorce rate by a startling 70 per cent, compared with same-sex co-workers.
That's according to a seven-year Swedish study of 37,000 employees by Yvonne Aberg, now at Oxford University.
But Aberg also showed divorce is contagious.
A married person is 43 per cent more likely to get divorced if a third of their co-workers are recently divorced, as opposed to none of them having recently left their marriages.
And even if wives work in all-female offices, the risks are still there.
Aberg found the risk of divorce rises 60 per cent if co-workers are mainly single, rather than married.
Chatting in the lunch queue, whispering at the water cooler, the women working with single women are exposed to a different life and sometimes gain the courage to leave.
So the workplace hazards are not just about other men.
In the cosy couple world of the stay-at-home mum, married women take comfort from learning the truth about each others' less-than-perfect marriages.
Knowing all about Alice's husband's drinking problem and Ethel's hubby's snoring, women feel content to stay put.
American sociologist Lillian Rubin once wrote about her married friends' shocked reaction to the news she was leaving her marriage. "You can't do that. Your marriage is no worse than mine," wailed one friend.
But when unhappily married women befriend other women who have moved on, their feet may just start to itch.
Yet the good marriages survive women working -- and may even thrive.
STACY Rogers, a researcher from Pennsylvania State University, finds in a marriage where both partners are happy and equally financially rewarded by their work, the increased family income makes the marriage more stable.
Divorce is most likely in unhappy marriages where both couples are contributing fairly equally to family finances. On the other hand, if these wives are financially dependent, the risk is reduced.
So give miserable women the power to walk and they'll take it.
The trick is keeping them happy at home.

25 September 2005, The Sun-Herald, Happy ever after with no effort? Tell 'em they're dreamin'
By Danielle Teutsch

Relying on Cupid is the reason so many marriages fail, relationship experts say.
Instead of daydreaming about happy ever after, all couples should see marriage education as a way of improving their lives - just as they might go to career counselling, the gym or parenting classes.
People's expectations of love today were unreasonably high, said Elizabeth van Acker, head of the Department of Politics and Public Policy at Griffith University.
The belief that "love conquers all" is perpetuated by celebrity weddings such as that of Bec Cartwright and Lleyton Hewitt. Yet the divorce rate is at 43 per cent.
"We live in a time of disposable relationships. It's all about love, and if that doesn't work, people are out of there," she said.
"Being in love is not enough for a successful relationship; couples need to be taught how to deal with the reality of living together."
A 1999 government report, To Have And To Hold, found only one in five couples had any form of marriage education. No current figures are available, but Dr van Acker said a stigma attached to counselling dissuaded couples from seeking help.
"People think marriage education is only for people with problems, whereas it's about improving your skills to make sure your relationship is healthy and strong," she said.
Dr van Acker said celebrants had an important role in referring couples to counselling.
Celebrants perform 55 per cent of all weddings, yet most marriage education courses in Australia are run by church organisations such as Centacare and Anglicare.
Next year, Family Relationship centres will open at Penrith and Sutherland, as part of Federal Government reforms to the Family Law System. They will provide referral to premarriage education and mediation for separating couples.
Dr van Acker said the Government needed to promote marriage education.
"If the number of divorces could be reduced, this would lead to substantial savings for the public purse," she said.
She was speaking at a marriage and relationship education national conference in Sydney this weekend.
Relationships Australia CEO Anne Hollonds said sustaining a long and healthy marriage was one of the biggest challenges that couples faced.
"It's the hardest thing we will ever do in life, harder than getting a job or buying a house," Ms Hollonds said.
"People just sort of drift into relationships and we tend to have an attitude that if you are in love it's enough. But all the evidence around us suggests that it's not."

23 September 2005, Forbes, Covering Your Assets In A Divorce
By Scott Reeves

New York - Bad marriages rarely make good divorces.
Torturing your soon-to-be ex in divorce court takes a little imagination mixed with viciousness and great gobs of money. If you want to make life miserable for the person, you can - often with the help of your attorney, who has a vested interest in litigating every little thing and running up the bill.
"Divorce is a simple division of assets," says Anthony Comparetto, an attorney in St. Petersburg, Fla., and author of Stop Dirty Divorce System. "But for many, divorce becomes a form of insanity. It quickly becomes more of an emotional than a legal issue - and the numbers are so simple."
For some, there is no depth left unplumbed in divorce.
"I once had a woman run into my office and shout, 'He cut the parakeet's feet off!' " Comparetto says. "The sad thing about divorce is that it shows good people at the lowest, nastiest point of their life. If you add a little pressure, some will explode."
If you want to be smart about divorce, do your homework and keep your emotions out of it. Splitting is rough enough without the anger.
Personal finance is promising territory for mischief in the hands of a nasty ex. You can fend off much of your ex's nastiness by taking some basic steps, including:

• Gather and organize all financial records and make copies of everything, one for yourself and a second for your attorney.
• Close, or at least freeze, access to all joint accounts.
• Keep a written record of all expenses run up before and during separation, including bills jointly paid and improvements made to the house.
• Document your net worth and keep a record of cash flow during separation.
• If you suspect your soon-to-be ex is hiding assets, you may have to hire a forensic accountant to sniff out the stash. Warning: This can be expensive, and if your ex is unusually devious, there's no guarantee of success.
• Before you sit down to a settlement conference, make a list of all items you want covered in the agreement. Consider the tax ramifications of forced sales of stock or other investments, and consult with your financial planner as needed.
• If there's something you know your former spouse will want in the property settlement, don't give it away in a futile gesture of goodwill - use it as a bargaining chip and trade it for something you want. The business side of divorce is hardball - and don't forget it.
• Plan to settle out of court. The attorney fees will be significantly less, and the majority of cases don't go to court. Check the settlement against your wish list before signing off.

Closing joint credit accounts and opening an account in your name only isn't difficult and should be done as soon as possible after you decide to split. The Web sites of major banks offer excellent information on the wise use of credit, including Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup.
Remember that divorce is governed by state law, and some details may differ from state to state. There can be great variation in interpretation or application of the law among judges in the same courthouse, so ask around about temperament, attitudes toward men and women, joint custody, alimony or moving to another state with the children.
Most attorneys will be reluctant to disqualify a judge, because they'll be back tomorrow with other cases. But if you have good reason to believe a judge can't be fair in your case - and you've got to nail it down because mere feelings won't cut it - insist that your attorney file the needed papers to get your case transferred to another court.
If your attorney promises an outcome, it's time to get new representation. No one can be certain how a judge will rule, and a competent attorney will tell you only what's been done in other cases and discuss likely outcomes.
Remember that your attorney is an advocate - not your friend or confidant. Most attorneys don't want to hear the gory details.
Getting nasty is expensive, and it's nastiness - not division of property - that leads to attorney's fees hitting $100,000 or more in what should be a simple case. Estimates on the average cost of a divorce in the U.S. range from $15,000 to $30,000.
"To avoid high attorney's bills, learn how to listen to your former spouse and learn how to woo that person," Comparetto says. "Think back to when you first dated - you listened to what each other said. The marriage failed, in part, because the couple stopped listening to each other. Listening is harder in divorce, especially if one or both parties is angry. Find a way to listen, because it will lessen the pain and keep the final bill down."
Think what you want in the divorce. For most, the answer is simple: out of a dead relationship.
Most men want regular contact with their children, but few want to be the custodial parent. If the kids are going to live with their mother, she needs money to raise them and may need money to cover her expenses until she returns to work. Two people who once loved each other and love the children shouldn't have any trouble figuring this out.
Of course, divorce is rarely that simple. Comparetto says divorce consumes about 60% of the time in civil court and has become a multibillion-dollar industry complete with shrinks, mediators, accountants and, for those who insist on being nasty to the nth degree, private detectives. The matrimonial law work alone is a staggering $28 billion-per-year industry.
"I no longer handle divorce," Comparetto says. "I saw the whole system turn good people bad."
Leah Hoffmann contributed to this report.

Seven traps to avoid if divorce turns nasty.

1. Where's the Monet?
   Hiding assets is the oldest trick in the book. It can be as simple as listing assets under a parent's name or playing games with the books at the family business. Unraveling the skulduggery may require a forensic accountant - and there's no guarantee of success.
2. The Incredible Shrinking Pay Stub
   If it turns out that the breadwinner has planned for several years to end the marriage and scoot with a younger person, look for an intentional decline in income. Child support is pegged to current income and the skunk may calculate - often correctly - that payments will be reduced to reflect the lower income. Pointing to prior income as evidence that the decline was intentional is a tough argument to win.
3. Credit Card Mania
   If a divorce is pending, cancel all joint credit accounts and open new accounts in your name only. This will protect your credit rating and prevent a vindictive ex from running up a huge bill.
4. The Family Business
   If you and your spouse jointly own the family business, get it appraised, since one side probably will have to buy out the other. You may want to do it this way: Get estimates from his appraiser, her appraiser and a third appointed by the court or agreed to by both sides. If the estimates are in line, the simplest thing to do may be to take an average.
5. Candlelight Divorce
   If you think hard, you can remember why you flipped for your soon-to-be ex. But don't let old feelings get in the way of a quick and equitable divorce settlement. Think of divorce as a new contract dissolving the old. It's just business. Think straight. Keep it as simple as possible.
6. Running On Empty
   If your soon-to-be ex is paying your attorney's fees, you have incentive to litigate everything. This is at least a two-fer: You may get what you're after - and you'll certainly run up the attorney's fees on both sides. This could force a settlement on your terms, but the real score is bleeding your ex's bank account dry.
7. Using The Children
   Using the kids as a club is nasty, hard on the kids - and unfortunately, brutally effective. The party with temporary custody can refuse to make the children available for visitation, change the schedule at the last minute due to an "emergency" or simply claim forgetfulness. This inflicts short-term pain on the non-custodial parent and may permanently scar the children. It's also likely to backfire on the perpetrator when the children grow older. Here's a thought: Don't do it. The kids aren't party to the divorce and need both parents.

23 September 2005, Stoney Creek News, Divide divorce assets amicably

Is an amicable financial divorce possible these day According to the professionals, it isn't as far-fetched as it sounds.
"When both partners understand what the legislation says and how it is applied, it helps to defuse some of the emotion," explains chartered accountant Wayne Rudson, president, Rudson Valuation Group in Toronto.
"The financial consequences of marriage breakdown are determined by legislation that is very specific, based on the concept of no-fault divorce. In Ontario, family law states that each marriage partner receives an equalization payment, not half of all the assets. It also requires that each spouse value the assets according to accepted valuation principles."
How do you determine the equalization payment?
Mr. Rudson says each spouse must prepare a Statement of Net Family Property, which is the increase in a person's net worth from the date of marriage to the date of separation.
"Any gifts or inheritances received from a third party during the marriage are excluded from Net Family Property. Once the numbers in each statement have been agreed upon, then the difference is split in half and the wealthier spouse is required to pay an equalization payment to the other spouse. If all the assets belong to one spouse, then that spouse must make a cash payment."
"Valuing assets is a complex process," said Mr. Rudson.
"If assets are transferred instead of a cash equalization payment, their current value has to be determined. This can be contentious because, until an asset is sold in the market, its value is uncertain.
"Valuing income, upon which child and spousal support is based, is difficult too, particularly if a spouse is self-employed or owns stock options, which may not expire for many years.
"Tax planning is also important. If an RRSP is transferred to a spouse, tax is deferred until withdrawals are made or the RRSP is collapsed. Company shares can also be transferred on a tax-deferred basis," advises Mr. Rudson.
Are there strategies to help keep the process on track?
"Being able to communicate and trust each other is essential," says chartered accountant Linda Brent, President, Brent Valuations Inc. in Toronto.
"Admittedly, trusting what your partner says can be a huge hurdle to overcome in a divorce. In most marriage breakdowns, any sense of trust has already been breached, leading to more suspicion, even less trust and poor communication. If each spouse deals with the issues openly and honestly, and if they know their rights going into it, then divorce doesn't have to be a battleground."
Hindsight is always 20/20," Ms. Brent continues, "but having a marriage contract can save a lot of grief and argument because it spells out how things will be dealt with in the event of a divorce.
"Should your marriage break down, consult a lawyer who specializes in family law, to make sure you get expert advice in the first place and to find out about your rights and entitlements. A family law specialist not only knows the system, rules and people, but also the other professionals such as mediators and chartered business valuators who can help resolve the controversial issues."
In valuing any larger, more significant items, Ms. Brent recommends consulting the experts.
"If you own a house or other property, check with a real estate appraiser, which is different from a real estate agent.
For a business, consult a professional valuator, who can bring objectivity and independence to the valuation process. A valuator can be appointed jointly on a binding or non-binding basis, depending on the specific circumstances. If emotions run high and differences just can't be resolved, then a mediator or arbitrator can be appointed to step in and help resolve the sticky points."
Can you have a financial divorce without the bitternes Yes, if both parties are prepared to invest trust, communication and cooperation.
Brought to you by The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario.

23 September 2005, The Australian, Reforms may worsen couples' battles
By Caroline Overington

The Howard Government's family law reforms may encourage women to raise allegations of violence to stop former husbands gaining access to their children.
In a submission to the Government on the planned changes, the Family Court says a mother who wanted to keep her children away from their father might raise his history of "occasional fights in bars ... even if it has only moderate relevance to the child's safety".
The court also says the new legislation will place "great pressure" on mothers to "find something" to raise against their husbands, to stop them gaining greater access to the children.
It says the new laws may also worsen relations between already warring spouses and lead to longer, more costly litigation.
The Family Court's concerns were in its submission on the Government's Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill, due in Parliament next month.
The Bill seeks to promote a presumption of shared parenting, except where there are allegations of violence.
The submission says "an unintended consequence (of the new law) might be that the formula will encourage allegations of violence".
"For example, in an ordinary case, of the kind that is often litigated, a father might seek more involvement with the child," it says. "If the father has a record of occasional fights in bars, the mother would be very likely to bring this up, even if it had only moderate relevance to the child's safety."
The new law will require separating couples to attend Family Relationship Centres to try to resolve their custody disputes before going to court.
Family Court Chief Justice Diana Bryant said yesterday: "Many people now resolve their disputes without going to court and will continue to do so. The question is whether the (centres) will divert others who would otherwise have gone to court away from court."
In its submission, the court says 30 per cent of cases include allegations of abuse or violence, and few of those people would "want to sit down with the other party and talk about violence/abuse issues".
"There would (also) be an unquantifiable number of applicants who do not want to go down the path of attending a Family Relationship Centre for any number of reasons and who will try to find something to give them an exemption," it says.
"The other party's drug abuse, alcohol abuse or mental illness are some examples that spring to mind."

22 September 2005, The Australian, Eyes on the child
By Caroline Overington

Women's and men's groups are equally unhappy with changes to family law that put children's interests first, writes Caroline Overington
Many people end their marriages amicably, with just a few documents pushed back and forth between the lawyers. For others, the process is painful and ugly. Then the Family Court gets involved.
"That's when things really get out of hand," says Sue Price, of the Men's Rights Agency. "Just take a look at the face of any father as he comes downb the steps of the Family Court. He's just been told that he'll only be able to see his children once a fortnight and he's just lost 80 per cent of his assets.
"People say: 'He must have been a real bastard to have that happen', but in Australia 70 per cent of divorce is instigated by women. He's probably just been told to get out of the house, and then a court comes and essentially takes from him everything that matters."
The Men's Rights Agency, like dozens of men's groups that have flourished in recent years, has been lobbying long and hard for family law reform. It was delighted when the Howard Government announced a review, and it sweated on the Government's Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill.
"We had high hopes for the law," Price says. "But now I think the whole thing has been a waste of time."
About 12,000 couples lodge uncontested divorce applications with the Family Court each year; another 12,000 ask for the matter to be heard. Of those, more than 90 per cent settle their differences before the hearing takes place and fewer than 10 per cent of cases, the so-called "hard-nut cases", have to be decided by a judge.

Struggle for Control
In the most recent budget, the federal Government allocated $397 million to its family law reform package.
In June it released an exposure draft of its Family Law Reform (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill. At the heart of the law is the presumption of shared parenting unless violence is an issue.
Men's groups say it does nothing to ensure that fathers get frequent access to their children after divorce.
Women's groups say children will lose the right to "one home, one carer, one neighbourhood" and instead will be shuffled between residences according to a parenting timetable. They say shared parenting means that women will have to hand children over to abusive fathers.
Men's groups say the legislation will encourage more women tomake false allegations of violence to avoid the presumption of shared parenting.
Parents will be required to agree on matters such as where the child will be educated, the child's religion, health care, name and any "significant changes in the child's living arrangements".
Women's groups say this gives men far too much control over the lives of their former wives. Price says the planned amendment, which is likely to come before parliament in October, has at its heart the "presumption of sharing parental responsibility", but that isn't the same as guaranteeing a 50-50 split or equal time. "We wanted a guarantee that men would have frequent contact with their children after divorce," she says. "We didn't get that."
If men's groups are unhappy about the planned legislation, then women's groups are too. National Council of Single Mothers and their Children convener Elspeth McInnes says: "The law goes much too far in the other direction. Gone is the idea that children will have one home, one carer, one school and friends, sporting events, all happening in their neighbourhood. What they will get is a parenting schedule. Instead of a home, they will have a timetable, basically."
Reactions such as these are predictable. Men's groups will always argue that family law is biased against men and feminist groups will always argue the opposite. In developing the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill, the Government tried to find the middle ground. Under the terms of the planned legislation, couples who separate will be required to at least talk to each other about the fate of their children before facing the Family Court. They will have to attend one of 65 Family Relationship Centres to come up with a parenting plan for their children. They also will need to agree on matters such as their children's education, religion and any "significant changes in the child's living arrangements".
Attorney-General Philip Ruddock says the centres will be "friendly, family places, like the local library, or medical centre". Women's groups regard this as fantasy. They say it's simply impossible for many women to attend face-to-face meetings with their former partners and that to force them to do so, without the protection provided by security guards at court, is a recipe for disaster.
The Family Court says violence is an issue in 30 per cent of the 12,000 cases that come to the court, asking for "final orders" to be made. That figure is backed by University of Melbourne law researcher Rae Kaspiew, who was granted special permission to study a random sample of 40 Family Court files (23 hearings, and 17 appeal cases). She selected the cases by asking the registrar to give her a list of cases heard between 1999 and 2000 and selecting every fourth one. In her analysis, to be published in this month's Australian Journal of Family Law, Kaspiew says violence was a "significant theme" in 23 of the 40 cases she studied, with men and women claiming that they had been beaten, harassed and abused. Thirteen women and two men had taken intervention orders against their former partners, and five women claimed to have been raped by their husbands.
Men's groups argue that violence is often alleged but rarely proven in the Family Court and that women use the allegations to prevent men from seeing their children.
They argue, too, that women are as violent as men.
According to the Australian Institute of Criminology's report Family Homicide in Australia, there are on average 129 domestic homicides each year. Of these, 60 per cent involve "intimate partners". Most (75 per cent) involve men killing female intimate partners; women comprise only 20 per cent of offenders. There are, on average, 25 child homicides each year. Biological mothers account for 35 per cent of the deaths; stepfathers (or de factos) for 34 per cent; and biological fathers for 29 per cent. However, there are key differences in motivation: mothers are more likely to kill infants under the age of 12 months, often when suffering from postnatal depression or mental illness, and they may not be separated or divorced. When a man kills a child, it is often a case of "discipline gone wrong", such as when a de facto father shakes a crying baby.
Ruddock says violence is a serious issue, which is why a key part of the legislation insists that the "presumption of shared parenting" will not apply in cases where violence has been alleged.
Also, couples who claim violence in the relationship will not have to attend the Family Relationship Centres. They can go straight to the Family Court.
Price says those exceptions will make the new legislation worse for men. "You can see what will happen," she says. "As soon as the reforms go through, you'll see every woman in Australia claiming she's been beaten. We already know that women lie about abuse to get custody of their children, so now we'll have more women saying they've been attacked when it might have been a tap on the shoulder, so the presumption of shared parenting won't apply."
McInnes says the opposite is true: "It's no secret that the Family Court sends children to see their violent fathers or that women get beaten by their partners. That's backed by reams of research. There is also no benefit to a woman to say she's been abused because if she can't prove it and the court thinks she's made up a false allegation, the court will punish her by granting custody to the father."
The amendment also tackles the issue of what should happen if a mother refuses to comply with an order to give the father access to his children. Men's groups complain this happens all the time. In June, their case received some support from a La Trobe University historian, John Hirst, who published a 28,000-word essay in current affairs journal Quarterly Essay, in which he attacked the Family Court for failing fathers.
Hirst's examples included men who had been driven to breaking point by women who refused to let them see their children. They had to return to court repeatedly, but it was often for naught. The Council of Single Mothers and their Children say women who refuse to abide by court orders often do so for good reason. They use the example of an alcoholic father who turns up drunk for an access visit. If the mother refuses to let her children get in the car, will the Family Court punish her by granting custody to the father, since she won't be able to prove that he was drunk and dangerous?
Shadow attorney-general Nicola Roxon, who has written her own report on the planned legislation, notes that it affects "many thousands of families" and says "my main concern is to protect people from harm and to ensure any changes we recommend [don't] make the situation worse".
But she also notes the planned amendment, while demanding that fathers get more access to their children, gives a mother "no way of requiring more involvement from the father".
"It goes totally unacknowledged that many residential parents would like their ex-partners to take on more responsibility for the children," Roxon says.
For example, the father may be able to argue that a woman not move interstate, so he can continue to see his children, but there is no requirement that a father live close to the mother or that he visit his children.
In launching the exposure draft of the bill, Ruddock noted that more than one million children have a parent living elsewhere. "Family breakdown is a fact of life," he said.
In rewriting the rules about custody, Ruddock wants to force adults to behave as such, by putting aside squabbles, "sit down around a table" and work out what is best for children. He acknowledges concerns about violence, but says in most cases shared parenting is the ideal.
"We want to create a new culture," he says. "We're going to change family law to emphasise that what we're concerned about is the rights of the children. People often focus on the difficulties in their relationships and children come second. But children do have a right to know both their parents."

21 September 2005, The Australian, Access granted to violent dads
By Caroline Overington, Social affairs writer

The Family Court regularly grants fathers access to their children in cases where there is evidence of family violence, a new study of confidential court files has shown.
Melbourne University law researcher Rae Kaspiew, who was granted rare access to the files for research purposes, says violence was a feature in 23 of the 40 randomly selected cases she studied.
"In all but the most severe cases, contact between fathers and children is virtually a given," Dr Kaspiew said yesterday.
"Even in the most severe cases, the maintenance of father-child contact is very seriously considered."
In five of the 40 cases, women alleged they had been raped by their partners, and 13 had obtained family violence orders against former partners.
In one case, a mother of five children aged between four and 12 told the court that all the children were afraid of her husband, who would force them "to eat through fear, and strike them".
Few custody battles end up before a judge in the Family Court. Although 12,000 couples a year apply to the court for "final orders", more than 90percent settle their differences before or during a trial.
The court is supposed to make its decisions based on the best interests of the child.
But in her analysis, published in this month's Australian Journal of Family Law, Dr Kaspiew says court counsellors often recommend some contact between violent fathers and children, even while acknowledging it may be harmful.
Dr Kaspiew's damaging review comes just weeks before the Howard Government is expected to introduce changes to family law in parliament.
The legislation, known as the Family Law Reform (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill, aims to encourage more "shared parenting".

20 September 2005, The Australian, Family Court gets fathers' perspective
Caroline Overington, Social affairs writer

The Family Court has been talking to men's rights groups in an effort to become more "father-friendly".
The court is also making staff who deal with families undergo training to help them better understand the male perspective in divorce.
The initiatives were introduced by the court's new Chief Justice, Diana Bryant, who is considered by men's groups to be more sympathetic to their concerns than former chief justice Alastair Nicholson.
Sue Price of the Men's Rights Agency, who attended the most recent meeting in Brisbane on Thursday, said: "We were a bit taken aback when we were asked (to attend the forum) because the Family Court has pretty much ignored the way men feel."
The meeting was attended by representatives of the court, the Child Support Agency, Relationships Australia, Catholic welfare agency Centacare, and men's groups. "We got out the butcher's paper and the whiteboards and we really talked about how we could make the system work better for men," Ms Price said.
"We discussed the fairness of the court decisions, and why the court seemed to regard fathers as the lesser parents. We asked why fathers should be made to feel like criminals. It was extremely productive."
Ms Price said Justice Bryant did not attend the meeting "but we spoke before she took over the court (last year) and I have the greatest respect for her".
"It's obvious that she wants to co-operate with men's groups and make the court more men-friendly," she said.
Andrew Chudleigh, who is a consultant and adviser to the Family Court on men's issues, said the forums were "a way to pull all these players -- the Government, the court, and the men's groups -- together, so they could voice their concerns."
He said the Family Court wanted to "educate the community about how the court works, and help them understand that the court doesn't make the law".
The Family Court's director of client services, Jennie Cooke, said the discussions were consistent with the court's stated aim of "understanding the needs of all its clients".
Terry Melvin of Mensline, who attended the first meeting in Sydney in June, said: " The Family Court comes in for quite a bit of criticism from men's groups and we thought that this was a way to build a connection.
"It was the first toe in the water, to start to build those links."
The Family Court has been criticised by men's groups almost since inception. Melbourne university historian John Hirst published a 28,000-word attack on the court in the March Quarterly Essay, saying it was biased against men, who were routinely denied access to their children.

19 September 2005, The Age (Melbourne), Labor abandoned suicidal MP, says sister

The leadership of the federal Labor Party abandoned Victorian MP Greg Wilton in the days before his suicide five years ago, his sister said today.
Leeanda Wilton today publicly backed Mark Latham over his claims last week that a toxic political environment inside the ALP contributed to Mr Wilton's death in June 2000.
Mr Latham said Mr Beazley made no effort to comfort Mr Wilton, who was struggling with personal problems and a marriage break-up, and that Labor powerbroker Stephen Conroy shared the blame.
Mr Beazley and Senator Conroy have both rejected the claims.
Mr Wilton lived with his sister in the last couple of months of his life.
Three weeks before his death, Mr Wilton, 44, had been found in a distressed state with his two children in a national park near Geelong.
Ms Wilton said the one thing her brother was hanging on to was the thought of retaining his seat of Isaacs.
She said he was devastated when Mr Beazley, then the leader of the party, made no attempt to contact him and the final blow was a newspaper article published the day he died.
"Really it was the upper levels of the party that failed Greg completely," Ms Wilton told ABC Radio in Melbourne today.
"He was devastated that Kim Beazley made no attempt to contact him, he said it to me so many times, you know: 'Gee, I would have thought Beazley would have contacted me by now, I still haven't heard from Beazley'," she said.
"The final straw was undoubtedly the article in the newspaper on the day that he did take his life.
"The allegations are from Mark Latham, and it was what I was told at the time, not only from Mark Latham but from other federal Labor politicians as well, was that Stephen Conroy had worked to put that article in the newspaper.
"The last words that Greg said, he rang me when he was about to take his life ... were about his so-called 'mates' in the ALP desperately trying to take his job off him," she said.
"So we know that that was the factor that tipped him over the edge on that particular day."
"They did abandon him."
Ms Wilton said while Mr Wilton had problems, the Labor Party leadership forgot he was a human being.
She said the one person who had continued to offer support to her family was Mr Latham.
"I'm not using (this) as payback. The reason I rang in (to the program) was because I was really concerned late last week that in fact that it was Mr Latham who was being pilloried over all of these sorts of issues," she said.
"And in fact it's Mark Latham that's the only one that's shown any decency through all of this.
"The issue is, I think, the truth needs to be told and I am someone who knows the truth in this particular matter ... and the truths? was not being told last week."
Those needing assistance can reach Suicide Helpline Victoria on 1300 651 251 or Lifeline on 131 114.
- AAP

19 September 2005, Sydney Morning Herald, Broken homes and the bid to share the care
By Stephanie Peatling

The overhaul of the Family Law Act comes after a period of sustained interest from the Federal Government in the lives of people whose marriages or partnerships have broken down.
Two years ago the Government appointed a committee to look at family law after the Prime Minister, John Howard, declared there were "very serious flaws" in the system.
As part of the shake-up, 65 family relationship centres will be set up to provide three hours of free counselling for separated couples. Couples will have to attend one of these sessions before filing an initial court application. This is now required only before seeing a judge.
But the centres will not be able to make any binding decisions and any cases involving suspected abuse will be referred to the legal system.
Behind the revamp is the principle of shared parenting responsibility, with, where possible, equal time for each parent.
The assistant secretary of the family law branch of the Attorney-General's Department, Kym Duggan, told the parliamentary committee investigating the changes: "The concept effectively is that even if you are not necessarily having major contact with the child, to use the old terms, or have the child living with you, you can still maintain a very significant role, in terms of the child's life, by having involvement in major long-term decisions which affect the child."
This will mean the non-resident parent has the right to be contacted on living arrangements affecting the children, such as where the family home is and if a new partner is going to move in.
The idea comes from lobbying by single-fathers groups, such as the Lone Fathers Association, which have inundated politicians' offices with stories of denied access, unproved allegations of violence and protracted dealings with the Family Court.

19 September 2005, Sydney Morning Herald, Custody wars: put kids first
By Stephanie Peatling

Critics of proposed changes to family law say they tip the scales too far in favour of non-custodial partners, writes Stephanie Peatling.
The story is sad, as it so often is, of lives interrupted, turned upside down and inside out when the relationship broke down. A marriage ended, leaving two people to share a three-year-old girl. The father stayed in Sydney, seeing his daughter every third weekend, for one week at school holidays and two weeks over Christmas.
The girl and her mother moved to the Central Coast, then back to Sydney, to Goulburn, to Wagga Wagga and, finally, Lismore.
"For me to comply with these relocations has meant I have had to spend many hours in cars picking my daughter up on a Friday evening and returning her on a Sunday afternoon," the father says.
"As she moved further away, it meant expensive air fares and long unaccompanied flights for a young girl. I never once, in all this time, missed an access visit and each January planned 12 months ahead for these times."
The arrangements worked well, most of the time, and father and daughter remained close although he moved into a new relationship and had another child. When his daughter started high school, the visits from Lismore stopped as her mother felt them too disruptive to her education, and contact broke down.
But when he told the Child Support Agency about the breach in custody arrangements he was told to see a lawyer, although it was the former partner who was breaking the agreement.
Despite this, he doesn't consider himself a "bitter and twisted non-custodial father". Rather it is the system that has failed him. "Despite formal access orders I am denied access," he says. "Why, despite numerous calls to the Child Support Agency, are they supposedly powerless to do anything about the custodial parents' non-conformance to the orders, yet can infiltrate and invade every part of my private financial affairs?
"Why am I told that I have to spend yet more money with a family law lawyer for advice on an arrangement that should be legally binding when I have already spent a very large amount of money through the legal system to establish the current access arrangements?"
The story is not unusual.
When the Lone Fathers Association, an increasingly high-profile lobby group representing non-custodial fathers, held a forum in Canberra recently it attracted both the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, and the Minister for Family and Community Services, Kay Patterson.
Man after man got up, angry and hurt, to tell the ministers of their experiences - of former partners who denied them access to their children, alleged abuse and drained them of financial support.
It was at this forum that Ruddock hinted at alterations to the Family Law Act which are being promoted as the most significant changes in more than 20 years. (A spokeswoman for Ruddock said the changes would be introduced into Parliament "as priority". Ruddock considers them "priority legislation along with the counter-terrorism measures", she said.)
The changes were almost everything aggrieved fathers could have asked for - independent verification of domestic violence allegations, harsher penalties for people who breach custody arrangements and the right to be consulted about the living arrangements of their children, including where and who the former partner moves in with. They came not long after the Government promised to deal with the other complaint of many non-custodial parents, usually fathers - child support payments.
A review of the system, which will shortly be considered by cabinet, recommended dumping the present system which bases payments on a percentage of the taxable income of the parent paying the support. Instead, the costs of the children would first be worked out based on the combined income of both parents and then divided between the parents based on their capacity to pay and the amount of time they spend with the children.
The changes would affect almost everyone who pays child support. About 60 per cent of parents providing child support, mostly men, would pay less than they do now under the recommendations. Single mothers' groups were outraged while fathers' groups celebrated.
The Government argues it is fighting to uphold the best interests of children and protect them as much as possible from the bitter effects of family breakdowns. But the hastily held public hearings to investigate the possible effects of the changes to the Family Law Act revealed grave concerns from lawyers and family relationship experts already working in the area.
Just five days were given over to a topic that provokes an avalanche of letters, emails, phone calls and visits from parents to their local members.
At the end of the hearings, the committee recommended the changes go ahead, with the chairman of the committee, the Liberal MP Peter Slipper, saying they would lead to a more "balanced approach" to family law.
But the shadow attorney-general, Nicola Roxon, produced her own report on the changes, which she says tip the scales too far in the favour of non-resident parents while not doing anything to deal with the difficulties faced by resident parents.
"I have reservations that these changes may increasingly mean that the resident parent will have their lives totally constrained by the demand for all manner of matters to be consented to by their ex-partner, while there is no comparable constraint on the non-resident partner," Roxon says.
"The result is a reform full of rights for non-residential parents, but short on responsibilities."
Roxon is also concerned that tightening the requirements around domestic violence allegations could discourage people, usually women, from seeking help because they fear they will not be believed.
If the changes go ahead, the definition of violence would be changed to mean actual or threatened behaviour that causes someone to "reasonably fear for, or be reasonably apprehensive about, his or her personal wellbeing or safety".
Claims would also have to be independently verified, both recommendations that were sought for by fathers' groups, which argue that false allegations of domestic violence are deliberately used by people to deny partners access to their children.
But this was disputed by the Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant, who says the rights of children must be considered even at the expense of parents' rights.
"In my experience there is some mythology about the sorts of [domestic violence] allegations the court will act on," Bryant said. "By the time a matter came to court it would be most unusual for it just to be one's word against the other.
"So you would almost never see a case in which a mother, for example, simply made an allegation that the father was abusing the child. You would almost never see that. I suspect that if you did you would not be acting on it."
There are times when the court finds the allegations are untrue but, she stressed, "most cases, and research supports this, were not maliciously false allegations".
Despite her evidence, the committee recommended an investigation into false allegations, although a number of witnesses said they were not aware of any evidence to suggest it happened more than occasionally.
As almost everyone involved in the area will say, some changes are needed to a system first dreamt up almost 30 years ago. But it is the unintended consequences that are feared by people like Roxon.
"There are so many changes proposed to the best interests of the child test, that it is hard to see if it will remain paramount, and paramount over the rights and desires of any parent."

18 September 2005, The Age, First glimpse inside divorce courts
By Gabriella Coslovich

You can't see Stella's face, you're not allowed to, but when the camera focuses on her painfully gnarled and wrinkled hands you understand immediately her anguish and frustration.
The grey-haired pensioner is in a legal battle over money with ex-husband Harry. She wrings her cruelly crumpled hands and fidgets with the rings on her gaunt fingers during a three-way phone conference between her, her ex-husband and her lawyer. She spits down the line to Harry: "You have got the money. You have the first penny you ever earned."
Normally, the bitter legal disputes between warring ex-couples are off limits to the media. Under the Family Law act of 1975 it is an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
Yet the makers of the Australian documentary series Divorce Stories managed to obtain unprecedented access to the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court and, on Thursday night, television viewers will be privy to the harrowing cases that come before those courts when the second episode of the series goes to air on SBS.
The series' co-producer and director Jessica Douglas-Henry said that being aware of the restrictions on the publication of family law matters, the documentary makers had originally ruled out filming inside the courts. Yet the further they progressed on their project, the more it became apparent that the proceedings inside the family law courts were fundamental to a series exploring divorce in contemporary Australia.
"We would constantly find ourselves coming across stories that we couldn't follow. So we began to ask is there a way we can do this?" Douglas-Henry said. The film-makers approached the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court and found both to be tremendously supportive.
"They could see there was a real opportunity for them to be involved in a project that enabled them to show the work of the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court," she said.
With the help of Film Australia, which co-financed the series, the film-makers negotiated access to the courts. The documentary makers were allowed to identify people who worked within the courts, but not the people whose cases were being heard. They also were required to change the names and voices of the people involved in disputes who had agreed to be filmed.
"It was an incredibly intense process to get the permission from all the parties involved, not just from the individuals, but also their lawyers," Douglas-Henry says.
She stresses that 95 per cent of Australians resolve their differences without resorting to the courts, but for the 5 per cent whose disagreements end up in the legal system, the journey is emotionally and financially fraught.

16 September 2005, The Herald Sun, The childcare conspiracy
Bettina Arndt

ROBERT Manne is no stranger to controversy. The La Trobe politics professor has long been in the hot seat socking it to the Howard Government over the stolen generations, refugees, and the history wars.
But when his wife, Anne, proposed writing a book on childcare he told her not to touch it. It was asking for trouble.
Anne Manne went ahead. She spent the next 10 years producing a book that lifts the lid on one of our society's nasty secrets.
Her new book, Motherhood: How should we care for our children?, is a brave, powerful expose of the price children may be paying for women's liberation.
Manne argues that while childcare is constantly promoted as the best means of reducing barriers to women's progress, there's been a conspiracy of silence about the risks this poses for young children.
She exposes the efforts of Australia's child development experts to deliberately play down the solid body of evidence showing young children, and particularly infants, may be damaged by long hours in group care.
Conclusive results from huge international studies recently led the British Government to make a dramatic about-face and shift from promoting childcare for infants and toddlers to paid parental leave.
The less time children spend in group care before three years the better, concludes British child expert Penelope Leach.
Similarly, the Scandinavian countries have given up trying to provide quality infant childcare and are now promoting parental leave.
But in Australia, most of our child experts are pretending none of this is happening. A few years ago there was an astonishing seminar organised by former minister for children Larry Anthony that brought together most of Australia's child development experts to discuss this worrying evidence.
Anne Manne and I watched as the bunch of professors ducked and weaved, determined to dismiss unpalatable facts about childcare.
WHENEVER these experts are publicly questioned about this research, they dismiss it as irrelevant, claiming it doesn't apply here because we have such quality care.
Quality care? What a joke. Last year 600 childcare workers took to the streets in protest at the New South Wales Government's decision to stick to current rules that allow one carer for every five babies.
"One to four for quality care," demanded the banners.
Right around Australia, our recommended ratios mean four or five babies must compete for the attention of one underpaid, often poorly trained worker.
As Manne's book points out, these ratios aren't quality care: they are a licence for neglect. And that neglect has serious consequences.
Manne details incontrovertible international research that shows the more time infants spend in such care, the more likely they are to show aggressive behaviour, such as bullying or meanness to others. They are more likely to have conflict with teachers and mothers and poorer work habits.
Plus there is critical new Australian research showing many young children in childcare exhibit increases in the stress hormone cortisol, linked to learning and emotional problems.
Newcastle University pediatrics professor Graham Vimpani is one of few prepared to speak out. "There's a huge level of denial based on fear," he says, suggesting that having long promoted childcare, many of his colleagues are now nervous and guilty about the prospect that group care for children under two years old carries real risks.
Vimpani, who is a key figure behind the Federal Government's push into early intervention, believes group childcare of young children may be one factor in the worrying escalation we are seeing in children's disruptive behaviour.
Few Australian children are exposed to such care -- 93 per cent of infants under one are never placed in childcare centres and more than a quarter are there for 10 hours or less a week, according to the 2002 Child Care Survey.
THE main exceptions are children of women working full time, including the newspaper editors and journalists, academics and bureaucrats who promote childcare policy that justifies their own decisions.
Anne Manne's book is not just about child care -- it provides a lively, intelligent discussion of maternal feminism, the economics of "affluenza" and new discoveries about child development. But its central attack nails the professionals charged with ensuring proper development for Australia's children. It should make them squirm.

12 September 2005, The Australian, Howard to soften stand on welfare
By Patricia Karvelas

A growing number of single parents - including foster carers, home-schoolers, mothers with more than four children and victims of domestic violence - would be exempt from the tough new welfare regime under changes being considered by John Howard.
The softened model, devised by senior cabinet ministers on Friday, would significantly cut the number of single parents forced to look for work under the Government's welfare-to-work package.
The changes would also exempt single parents of disabled children from being forced on to the dole when their child turns six.
The Australian has learned that under the revised plan these parents will instead be put on the higher carer payment.
The parents of children with disabilities including autism, cystic fibrosis, uncontrolled epilepsy and schizophrenia, are not now eligible for the carer payment because these are not considered severe enough disabilities to qualify.
Two out of three claims for the carer payment are rejected.
Under the changes, being pushed by Family and Community Services Minister Kay Patterson, the criteria for the payment will be much broader, allowing an extra 55,000 parents to receive it.
A cabinet subcommittee - including Employment Minister Kevin Andrews, Finance Minister Nick Minchin, Senator Patterson, Human Services Minister Joe Hockey and Workforce Participation Minister Peter Dutton - met on Friday to finalise a raft of recommendations to soften the welfare-to-work reforms.
The Prime Minister is considering exemptions from the requirement to look for work that include foster parents, single parents who teach their children at home instead of sending them to school, single mothers who have more than four children, and those who have suffered domestic violence within six months of claiming welfare.
But unlike the parents of children with a disability, these groups will still be moved on to the lower dole payment.
The Australian understands that senior ministers were concerned the measures would create a "perverse" incentive for parents to invent reasons for exemption from the new regime if they could also get a higher welfare payment.
Mr Dutton is understood to have argued that if some parents are allowed not to look for work, they should also be allowed to stay on their parenting payment for the period of the exemption.
Other exempt groups will include single mothers living in areas too far from jobs.
Peter Costello has previously told senior ministers he was concerned the changes to the original package watered it down too much and would have budgetary implications. The Treasurer is understood to fear that savings would be lost.
The subcommittee rejected Mr Dutton's proposal to cut dole payments immediately if recipients miss a job agency meeting.
Under the compromise model put forward on Friday, the job agencies will have to try to contact a dole recipient twice within 48 hours of them not attending a meeting before they can contact Centrelink.
Centrelink will then have to make two phone calls and send a letter before stopping the payments.
The changes will please church-based Job Network agencies that had threatened to pull out of the privatised system if the rules, first outlined in the May budget, were not changed.

08 / 09 September 2005, HELP WANTED for the 'Human Rights and Australia's Mental Health Policy - The third National Conference on Human Rights and Mental Health'

Are you able to volunteer your time for a good cause?
As you know the 'Human Rights and Australia's Mental Health Policy - The third National Conference on Human Rights and Mental Health' is to be held at the Federal Parliament House, CANBERRA ACT 2600 on Thursday 8, Friday 9 September 2005, we need your help...
Admin: We need two people who are able to help out on the organising process. You will need to make phone calls, process payments, update records and do general admin work.
Recording of the proceedings: You will need a video camera, preferably HD, need to be able to give us a digital capture ideally, and the appropriate sound equipment for the area.
Film screening: You will need to be able to help out with screening the segments of several films during the conference.
Should you require any further information please email:
louise@informcoaching.com or
director@save.org.au
or for more information on the conference information please visit:
www.save.org.au/events/Conf2005.pdf

Regards, Maqsood Alshams
Chair of the Conference Organizing Committee
The 3rd National Conference on Human Rights and Mental Health

08 / 09 September 2005, Human Rights and Australia's Mental Health Policy
The third National Conference on Human Rights and Mental Health
Federal Parliament House, CANBERRA ACT 2600

SAVE Australia, an independent advocacy group is hosting the third National Conference on Human Rights and Mental Health at the National Parliament in Canberra on the 8 & 9th of September 2005.
Why should people attend?
This conference focuses on the important relationship between mental health and powerful social, legal, health, justice, immigration and government institutions - all of which have a profound influence over people's individual human rights.
There is a fragile relationship between mental health and human rights as demonstrated by the failure of some institutions to uphold the human rights of individuals struggling with mental health issues. In turn, failures to uphold human rights can be seen to impact adversely on people's mental health.
So this is the time to lift our voices in the heart of the national capital to ensure that Australian institutions treat people with mental health issues with dignity and respect and to examine the capacity of these institutions to uphold important human rights values.
The conference aims to make a timely contribution to significant contemporary Australian debates on mental health and human rights.
To be proud of Australia as a nation we must afford the most vulnerable people in our society their most basic human rights.
Topics Include:
Policy and Politics of Mental Health and Human Rights, The State of Indigenous Mental Health, Torture in the Modern Days, Human Trafficking and Slavery in Australia, Mental Illness and the Prison System, Mental Health/Legal System/Industrial Relations, Community Concerns on Mental Health and Human Rights, Basic Health and Human Rights. Young People, LGBT Communities, People who have come to Australia as Refugees and Asylum Seekers, People with Disabilities and Ageing Communities.
Invited Speakers Include:
DAY ONE - Senator Claire Moore (Host of the conference), Senator The Hon Gary Humphries, Dr Carmen Lawrence MHR, Mr Patrick Dodson (TBC), Lowitja O'Donoghue AC (TBC), The Hon Linda Burney MP, Jennifer Zheng, Jennifer Burn, Speakers from ACTU, Amnesty International and several government and non-government organisations are yet to confirm. Ms Lillian Holt will be speaking on "The Human Condition and the Five H's (History, Honesty, Humanity, Humour and Hope)" at the conference dinner.
DAY TWO - The Hon Julia Gillard MP, Amanda Gordon, Howard Glenn, John Mendoza, Senator Linda Kirk (TBC), Rachel Wallbank, The Hon Louise Pratt MLC, Paris Aristotle (TBC), Phil Glendenning, Tony Miller, Bishop Pat Power(TBC), and many others yet to be confirmed. Summarized report from all break-up sessions to formulate "Actions and recommendations" to be presented to the House of Representatives, and to the Senate as adjournment speech.
The confirmed conference program can be found at: www.save.org.au

08 September 2005, The Australian, Mundane matters for dads
By Caroline Overington

Divorced fathers who see their children only once a week or once a fortnight are at risk of developing a "Disneyland Dad" syndrome, where they are focused on entertaining their children, rather than developing a strong, meaningful relationship.
A report by Bruce Smyth at the Australian Institute of Family Studies http://www.aifs.gov.au says divorced fathers are often denied an opportunity to have "mundane" contact with their children, "doing ordinary things, such as just tucking them into bed, or sitting down to peel potatoes".
The report - to be included in the institute's winter edition of Family Matters, and which reveals that a quarter of fathers have no contact or see their children less than once a year - says the recent debate about child custody was "all focused on the numbers".
"It was all about 50/50 or 80/20 or 70/30 time splits," Mr Smyth said.
The preoccupation with numbers "means that separated parents can lose sight of what is most important, which is how the arrangement is structured".
As an example, he said overnight visits often took place on Fridays and Saturdays, "when dads might feel they have to take the children out. It might be better if these visits happened on a weeknight, so the father can have the experience of making the child's lunch, and taking them to school, waking up and having breakfast with them."
Mr Smyth said the "apparent obsession" with fathers for 50/50 shared parenting might reflect a desire for "time to develop more closeness with a child" by just "hanging out, talking about things".
"There are a lot of children in Australia who only see their fathers twice a month," he said.
"So their dads become these good-time dads or Disneyland Dads, who feel like they have to do something, to show the kids a good time."
Mr Smyth said non-custodial fathers often felt that the time allocated to them was "stilted, shallow, artificial and brief".
He said custody arrangements should allow both parents to experience "fluid, meaningful time, with each parent".
According to recent studies, about 34 per cent of non-custodial parents have "standard contact" arrangements, where they see their children every weekend, or every other weekend. About 26 per cent never see their children or see them less than once a year.

08 September 2005, Sydney Morning Herald, See you next year, Dad ... the sad reality for one in four broken families
By Stephanie Peatling

Thousands of children whose parents divorce will see their fathers less than once a year. It is the grim new statistic for our times: 26 per cent of children from broken families will wait more than 12 months for contact with their non-resident parent, usually the father.
The Minister for Family and Community Services, Kay Patterson, is worried. "I am extremely concerned that over a quarter of non-resident parents have little or no contact with their children and that many parents feel this is acceptable," Senator Patterson told the Herald.
According to research to be published next week by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, the most common type of contact - affecting 34 per cent of children from split families - is spending every weekend or every other weekend with the non-resident parent.
The second largest group - 26 per cent - sees the parent who lives elsewhere less than once a year. Only 6 per cent of children spend close to equal time with both parents. Other children see their non-resident parent only during school holidays or once every three to six months. The research is based on interviews with almost 500 households.
Federal cabinet is preparing to decide on the biggest shake-up of custody payments in nearly two decades. A taskforce recommended the system be changed to recognise the time both parents spend caring for children, regardless of who has custody. About 60 per cent of parents providing child support, mostly men, would pay less under the recommendations. The Government has embraced the taskforce's report and is also about to overhaul the Family Law Act to give non-custodial parents a greater say in the living arrangements of their former partners and tighten the definition of domestic violence.
Spurred by complaints from aggrieved fathers, the Government is in favour of putting into law the concept of shared responsibility, which would mean a resident parent must discuss changes to their living arrangements, such as the home's location and the possibility of new partners moving in, with the non-resident parent.
The new research stresses it is the quality of time, rather than quantity, that is important. It found "emerging evidence that a regime of every-other-weekend father-child contact" may diminish his importance to his children.
Such a pattern did not give the resident parent much of a break and could create resentment in older children, whose social lives and arrangements such as sport were disrupted. "This preoccupation with time as a number in family law . means that separated parents can lose sight of what is most important to their children - spending time in a broad spectrum of activities and experiences with their parents."
Senator Patterson agrees, saying children benefit from frequent contact rather than "fixating on percentage representation of care ... Whatever the contact is, it needs to be meaningful."

08 September 2005, The Age, Many children miss the fatherly influence
By Liz Gooch, Social affairs reporter

One in four children whose parents are separated has little or no contact with their non-resident parent, according to a report that shows shared parenting remains the least common arrangement.
While the number of children being jointly cared for has increased slightly since 1997, only 6 per cent are in shared parenting arrangements, according to the Australian Institute of Family Studies report (http://www.aifs.gov.au).
The report defines shared parenting as cases where children are in the care of either parent for at least 30 per cent of nights a year.
About 88 per cent of children lived with their mother after separation, the report's author Bruce Smyth said.
He said fathers might have little contact with their children if there was parental conflict or they lived far apart.
While about one in three children whose parents are separated sees their non-resident parent each weekend or every second weekend, the report, based on 2004 ABS data, also found:

• Sixteen per cent have daytime-only contact.
• Ten per cent see their non-resident parent only during school holidays.
• Seven per cent see their non-resident parent once every three to six months.

Other data shows that in families where the non-resident parent has little or no contact with the child, 40 per cent of resident mothers said there was not enough contact.
About three-quarters of non-resident fathers in this group thought they did not spend enough time with their children.
The report says contact every other weekend provides resident parents with little respite, may interfere with a child's social activities and can create resentment, particularly among older children.
Mr Smyth said while recent debates had focused on the time fathers spent with children, the type of time children spent with non-resident parents was critical.
It needed to involve routine activities, he said.
If a child saw their father only on a Saturday, they might not have the everyday experiences needed to build a close relationship.

07-11 September 2005, Edith Cowan University, Researching Second Families

Dear Second family member,
No doubt you will have heard about the planned changes to the Family Law and Child Support systems, as shown on the news and current affairs programs such as 4 Corners, Sunday, and 60 Minutes. The Government has stated that these changes will make life better for those who have been through separation and divorce and will ease the burden on single parent families.
However, once again, the Federal Government has missed the mark and has not considered the implications of their policy on divorced parents who re-partner and have subsequent children with their new partners.
The current Family Law and Child Support systems lacks equity and actually increases the strain and difficulty encountered by second families. This is especially true for children born into second relationships, who are not given the same rights as the child(ren) from the first relationship. How can a Government, that is supposed to represent all people, create such a divide through the heart of the family unit?
This MUST change and the way forward is through research that can inform this social policy. At present, there is little research in the area and as such, we are currently conducting focus group in order to understand the experiences (both good and bad) of people living within a second family structure.
So, we are looking for couples that have been married for a period of 2 years or more who have children and have regular contact with a non-residential child from a previous relationship. We will run separate focus groups, one being for parents of non-residential children and one for their spouse.
In order to help us conduct this much needed research, we ask that you forward the message on to people that may be a part of, or live within a second family, or know someone that is. This may include, friends, family, relatives, co-workers... practically anyone.
PLEASE HELP SECOND FAMILIES HAVE A VOICE!
Your help in this research can help to produce a Family Law and Child Support system that is fair, just and equitable for all.

Further details:
Edith Cowan University
RESEARCHING FAMILIES
"I'll Huff and I'll Puff and I'll Blow Your House Down... The Adversity of Second Families"

Are you a non-residential parent?
Are you the partner of a non-residential parent?
WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU!
We are conducting focus groups in order to understand the experiences of people living within a second family structure and the challenges they face.
The focus groups will run for approximately 1 - 1 1/2 hours and will provide you with the opportunity to discuss your opinions and experiences.
All focus groups will be run at the Joondalup Campus of Edith Cowan University. They will be run on the following dates:
WEDNESDAY 7th SEPTEMBER 7:30pm
SATURDAY 10th SEPTEMBER 3:00pm
SUNDAY 11th SEPTEMBER 10:00am
Tea, Coffee and light refreshments will be provided.
If you would be interested in volunteering and sharing your experiences along with others in a similar situation, please contact:
James McCue, School of Law & Justice, Edith Cowan University
Ph: 6304 5469, Email: james.mccue@ecu.edu.au
- OR -
Pamela Henry, School of Law & Justic, Edith Cowan University
Ph: 6304 5124, Email: pamela.henry@ecu.edu.au

02 - 04 September 2005, The Fatherhood Festival

I am proud to announce the World Fatherhood Festival in Bangalow, running for 3 days from Friday 2nd to Sunday 4th September 2005.
The Festival is for men, women and children. It celebrates and questions fatherhood today.
The Friday includes a conference on engaging fathers in your work. The rest of the weekend is rich with art exhibitions, comedy, big talks, music concerts and free childrens shows. It is a true community weekend for the whole family.
For more information please check out our website at
www.fatherhoodfestival.com

Look forward to seeing you there.
Colin George, director, the fatherhood project

03 September 2005, The Australian, Modern dads revel in hands-on parenting
Caroline Overington

LIKE most little girls, Lola Millman occasionally takes a tumble in the playground, and when she does she often runs to Dad. "That to me is awesome," says her father, Sy Millman.
"She knows I'm there for her. I'm not some distant figure. If she wakes in the night, she'll often call out to me."
Mr Millman's close bond with Lola and with his four-year-old son, Jaid, is a product of having spent many hours caring for his children, a growing trend as men take a bigger parenting role.
"Fathers these days are spending more time with their children than they ever did," says Michael Bittman, of the sociology department at the University of New England in NSW. "They regard it as terribly important."
On the eve of Father's Day, Professor Bittman said new research showed the culture of fathering had changed.
In interviews with sociologists, men "will now say fathering is something that involves being there for a child, not just providing for a child", he said.
"Even 10 years back, if there was something like a speech day at school, fathers would think it was important for their partner to turn up. Now they think it's important they turn up as well."
Professor Bittman's research is backed by the release this week of a new study of 800 parents, commissioned by the Care for Kids online childcare resource, which showed four in five fathers spent about five hours a day with their children on weekends. About half said that time included taking "a much more active role in the less exciting aspects of child-rearing" such as nappy changing and bathing.
In a separate report, Parent Line, a hotline run by Centacare, noted that calls from fathers had doubled in the previous year. Many were seeking advice on the mundane aspects of parenting, such as how to get a baby to sleep.
Lyn Craig, a research fellow of the Social Policy Research Centre at the University of NSW, said: "In recent years, there's been a discourse on the needs of children. We are aware that they require attentive and sustained nurturing."
She said parents were required to play the role of siblings, too, "because of a dramatically lower birth rate". However, she said the trend should not be overstated.
"In the grand scheme of things, there's no doubt that mums are still doing the lion's share of caring," she said.

03 September 2005, The New Zealand Herald, Rankin to run big families campaign
By Simon Collins

An Auckland property developer has thrown a wildcard into the election with a multimillion-dollar campaign to turn social policy around to stop families breaking up.
John Sax, chief executive of Southpark Corporation, has hired former Work and Income head Christine Rankin to set up For the Sake of Our Children Trust, which will run the campaign.
Other celebrities supporting it include former All Black Stu Wilson, athlete Steve Gurney, TV3 newsreader Howard Dobson, author Alan Duff, parent educator Ian Grant, Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples, National candidate Tau Henare and MPs Peter Dunne and Muriel Newman.
Mr Sax told 300 people at Auckland's Sky City Convention Centre last night that 30 years of misconceived social policy had produced babies born out of wedlock, parents walking out of marriage, payments for sickness instead of wellness and for unemployment, not employment.
He cited "un-politically-correct facts" that children were three times as likely to die from child abuse if they were living in de facto families, four times more likely if they were in sole-parent homes, seven times more likely if they lived with step-dads or in blended families, and 73 times more likely if they lived with mum and her boyfriend.
"We claim we have the right as adults to pursue any relationships we like - but at the cost of our children, do we?" he asked.
Children of sole parents were also twice as likely to drop out of school, 2.5 times as likely to commit suicide and four times as likely to have health problems, said Mr Sax.
Sole-parent families were 4.6 times more likely to have drinking problems and 5.6 times more likely to be drug-dependent.
Girls raised in homes without their fathers were six times more likely to have children as teenagers. Children raised in fatherless homes were 19 times more likely to end up in prison.
"If we value our children, we must love, nurture and care for them in peaceful households with families who love them to bits, in a peaceful community where they know they are cared for."
Mr Sax said the campaign did not offer any alternative policies, but wanted to spark a nationwide debate about the issue.
As well as running his business, Mr Sax has worked for 16 years on youth mentoring schemes in Otara and Mangere and helped to found the New Zealand Mentoring Association.
He said the campaign would have a budget in "multi-seven-figures". He declined to comment on how much of it he was funding himself.
Ms Rankin, who took a grievance case against the Labour Government when her job as head of Work and Income was abolished, said she moved from Wellington to Auckland four months ago and was working three days a week on the campaign. She and her son also run a human resources company.
Dr Sharples said his involvement with Mr Sax predated the creation of the Maori Party and he supported the campaign's principles.
Social Development Minister Steve Maharey said only 10 children died from child abuse in New Zealand each year so he did not know where Mr Sax's figures came from.

03 September 2005, The Age (Melbourne), Don't manage yourself out of a job and family
By Marcus Padley

Went to dinner the other night (couples). The bloke two up to the right looked after his own Self-managed Super Fund. We had a 10-minute "shout", with his wife being ignored in the middle. He uttered the words: "It's OK, she trusts me." She uttered the words: "No, I don't." Couple of wines and that was it. Armageddon. Clearly, running your own super puts more than your money at risk. If you don't watch out, you also risk your career.
THE CAREER
Having to do "investment" while you are flat chat doing a job all day is a burden. If I was an employer, I'd ban online trading websites at work, the same way I'd ban porn. It costs the employer money. Plus, I reckon if you put the work time spent cocking up your retirement into developing your career or business, you'd get a significantly better return. Certainly a more reliable return.
THE KIDS
Ignoring the family. I work at home occasionally and am aware my family have to talk to my back while I stare at the stockmarket. Young families are a passing moment never to be recovered. It is an expensive mistake to think your unofficial "investment" job entitles you to ignore your children's youth evaporating. Especially at the weekends. The kids don't deserve their heads bitten off just because you're a crap investor.
THE RELATIONSHIP
From experience (not my own, I would add) I can tell you that investment can put a relationship under immense pressure. It is all about money, after all; the No. 1 cause of divorce (and marriage - if only I'd known earlier). Usually one person gets the responsibility for the "investments" and heads off to the study and a world of mystery for the other. All OK if you do well, but you may not, and if you don't, it can be very divisive.
When I talk to people about learning to invest, I say they have to find the edge of their own mental investment envelope. Work out how much they can take. I found out one day. It was when I lost so much money I couldn't tell my wife.
The moral here is that if you are looking after investments for your family, involve your spouse, involve anyone involved. Let them know what's going on. Ask their opinion. Have a monthly chat. It was a big surprise to find out it was my wife that had the big risk appetite, not me. All I had to do was ask. It was a very healthy moment. We are riding the same waves now (and I have someone else to blame when it all goes oblong).
And if you are not the one involved, involve yourself. They may not know it, but they could need your help. If your Study Door has a "Do Not Enter" sign, you can bet the SMSF is underperforming, and you know, that's no one's "fault".

02 September 2005, ATTORNEY-GENERAL, The Hon Philip Ruddock MP
NEWS RELEASE, FAMILY RELATIONSHIP CENTRES TASKFORCE

The Australian Government has established a taskforce to advise the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, and the Minister for Family and Community Services, Kay Patterson, on how best to implement its 65 new Family Relationship Centres.
The taskforce members are Mr Phil Barresi MP, Mr Stephen Ciobo MP, Mr David Fawcett MP (Chair) Mr Michael Ferguson MP, Mrs Kay Hull MP, Mr Michael Keenan MP, Ms Jackie Kelly MP and Ms Louise Markus MP.
"This group will ensure that the family relationship centres, the centrepiece of the Government's $397 million package to help families with relationship difficulties, work well within the existing system and meet the needs of the community," Mr Ruddock said.
"I welcome their input on this important initiative, and continue to welcome input from the community on how the Family Relationship Centres can help them." Mr Ruddock said.
The taskforce will advise on the quality and performance standards of the centres and consult with community organisations delivering family relationship services to ensure the new centres deliver best quality services.
"Contrary to recent claims, this taskforce will not advise on the selection of service providers or the locations of Family Relationship Centres," Mr Ruddock said.
The taskforce will operate until 31 July 2008, when Government's 65 family relationship centres will have been established.

Media Contact: Scott Kelleher 02 6277 7300
Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600
Telephone: 02 6277 7300
Facsimile: 02 6273 4102
website www.law.gov.au/ag

Family Relationships Centres Taskforce
Terms of Reference
The terms of reference for the Taskforce are to:

• review the implementation of 65 Family Relationship Centres
• advise on the performance framework and practitioner standards for the centres
• advise on the interface between the centres and the family courts, the Family Relationship Services Program, the child support system and other social infrastructure
• give feedback on the communications strategy on the Government's family law reforms.

The Taskforce should consult with non-government organisations delivering family relationship services. The Taskforce will not advise on the selection of service providers or the locations of Family Relationship Centres.
The Taskforce will operate until 31 July 2008, by which date the Government's 65 family relationship centres will be established.
The Taskforce will report to the Attorney-General and the Minister for Family and Community Services.
The members of the Taskforce, which are nominated by the Attorney-General, are Mr Phil Barresi, Mr Steven Ciobo, Mr David Fawcett (Chair), Mr Michael Ferguson, Mrs Kay Hull, Mr Michael Keenan, Ms Jackie Kelly and Ms Louise Markus.

01 September 2005, Benchmark, Lake Mcquarie City Council Staff Newsletter
Darrel Helps Dads in Distress

Enduring the trauma of a divorce and family separation would be difficult for anyone. CiviLake Project Coordinator, Darrel Charlesworth, turned his painful journey into a positive one by becoming a volunteer for Dads in Distress (dids). Since 2003 , Darrel has been volunteering as a local facilitator, providing support to other dads going through the stress of divorce, separation, and legal proceedings.
"I decided to become a volunteer because I went through the trauma of a family breakdown myself," Darrel said. "The experience can be very upsetting, especially when there are kids involved.
Dads in Distress is a support group for people going through the same thing. Men can let out their emotions, vent their feelings, and get advice from other people who have had the same experience.
"The main purpose of dids is to nurture, validate, and stablise, men going through a separation, and prevent them from becoming depressed and suicidal. On average, five Australian men commit suicide each day - a family break up often tips people over the edge," Darrel said.
"Another major goal is to persuade the federal government to change legislation to reflect a fair and equitable parenting arrangement in separations. The courts often favour the mother."
To improve his skills as a facilitator, Darrel completed a suicide intervention course at Coffs Harbour. He said he gains great satisfaction from working with the group, and does it because he knows how traumatic a separation can be.
"We recently won a grant of $20,000 from Clubs NSW to promote our local scheme. We will use the money for advertising to raise awareness of our services. We will also invest in a computer with internet access, so participants can access extra resources to help them with their paperwork for legal proceedings."
The Lake Macquarie & Newcastle Dads in Distress group meets at Tighes Hill Primary School each Wednesday at 7:30pm. Darrel said anyone can just turn up on the night.
"It's not just for men. A lot of grandparents and mothers come along with their sons to support them. We don't discriminate against anyone," Darrel said.

Dads In Distress is funded by the Australian Federal Government.