Dads in Distress Inc

Phone: 1300 853 437
Email: didsadmin@bigpond.com
Internet: www.dadsindistress.asn.au
Postal Address: PO Box 2333, Coffs Harbour NSW 2450, Australia

29 October 2005, The Guardian (UK), We're on a mission
By Simon Hattenstone

After years of campaigning, fathers' rights are finally being taken seriously by the politicians. But how much of it is down to the high-profile antics of Batman and Robin? Simon Hattenstone meets the men behind the movement.
In June this year, newspapers reported a split in the pressure group Fathers 4 Justice. The split was as comical as it was inevitable. The breakaway group announced that it was to be known as Real Fathers for Justice, apparently oblivious to the IRA connotation. It soon found itself on the defensive, having to explain that it had no intention of resorting to bombing campaigns in its attempt to gain greater contact rights for fathers separated from their children.
Perhaps, for old-time campaigners such as Jim Parton at Families Need Fathers, the astonishing thing was that the split was deemed newsworthy in the first place. FNF had spent 30 years trying to flog stories to newspapers - about the unfairness of the family court system, dads denied access, dads in despair - with little luck. They were widely regarded as whingers, bad dads, dodgy reactionaries who wanted to strip women of their rights. In short, fathers were not sexy.
Then along came Matt O'Connor and F4J. O'Connor's group was as loud and brash as he was. The marketing/design executive had been a member of Families Need Fathers, and had decided there was little point in whispering about fathers' plights. F4J members would be prepared to go to prison for their cause. They would demand attention rather than plead for it.
And so they did.
Over the past three years, they have shouted the odds from a Buckingham Palace window ledge, from Westminster - where they flour-bombed the prime minister, from York Minster, Tower Bridge, the London Eye. Before long, every F4J stunt became national - then international - news. Time magazine ran a cover story on F4J and, suddenly, the then children's minister, Margaret Hodge, wanted to be seen on Newsnight with O'Connor debating the F4J proposal of 50-50 contact as the norm.
Jim Parton looked on in amazement. "We'd had three decades of failure, we were unfashionable and demoralised and there was so much infighting. Then Matt O'Connor started F4J and, no question, made a big impact. At times I've been very envious. My telephone stopped ringing. I wasn't getting gigs on 5 Live or Breakfast News any more."
Parton says that part of the problem was that his organisation had been marginalised by the liberal establishment. "What we were doing was seen as politically incorrect among the Polly Toynbees of this world. Look, if you've been excluded from seeing your child you get angry. We all had issues with a woman, and in some cases people generalised that to women more broadly. But 96% of our guys are just normal. Our drive is not misogyny, it is love for our children."
Parton got involved with FNF in 1992 after he split up with his Japanese wife. "There was no trouble over access for 10 years, but I wanted more. I didn't see why I should walk on eggshells to see my own son, with whom I got on incredibly well. I didn't see why I should have to return him at 6pm and get a solicitor's letter if he was five minutes late." Eventually, he says, his wife returned to Japan and refused all access to his son, who is now 18.
While FNF is quick to acknowledge the achievements of F4J, it is less generous about another rival group, Fathers Direct. Parton suggests conspiratorially that it could almost have been a spoiler. "Patricia Hewitt was at the centre of their core funding - it came from the Department of Trade and Industry." Why would the government have bothered to set up a spoiler organisation?
"Well, if there's a respected, well-funded fathers' organisation, the media would turn to them rather than us."
Jack O'Sullivan, co-founder of Fathers Direct, says this is untrue. For starters, the funding came from the Home Office. Second, Fathers Direct never saw itself as in competition with groups that focused on separated fathers. "The key thing to understanding the fathers' movement in Britain is that it is actually a huge social change. Forget organisations, the fathers' movement is millions of men living their lives in a different way to their own fathers. The organisations are peripheral to that." He bombards me with data to prove his point.
"In a typical family, men are doing one third of childcare of the under-fives. Longitudinal studies over 35 years show the key impact fathers have on children's lives: better educational achievement when dad's involved and better social skills, lower rates of criminality, improved mental health for kids who have a close relationship with the father. Girls who have a good relationship with their father are more likely to make a successful life-long relationship with men."
O'Sullivan talks about the need to make alliances with any number of organisations - women's groups, children's charities, the Equal Opportunities Commission. So have they made an alliance with F4J? "No," he says tersely. "Fathers Direct would not be an ally of F4J. We have two objections. First, their style of campaigning fractures the alliance for change." What does that mean? "The key alliance isn't of men together, it's of men, women and children. F4J has expressed the pain of separated partners, but because it has allowed itself to be seen as an angry movement against women, it has alienated potential allies."
The second objection, O'Sullivan says, is that Fathers Direct believes F4J's legislative programme is flawed. "They want to enshrine fathers' rights [to contact with their children] in law. We think the law is fine, the problem is it's not being put into practice. The law says, after separation the best interests of the child should be served, and the state is demonstrably failing children after separation. So the system doesn't work, but the answer isn't enshrined in fathers' rights."
But it is F4J that captured the public imagination. Parton is delighted that F4J has moved fathers' rights up the political agenda, but is also slightly bitter. "They have accelerated the process of reform. Now something is going through in the children's bill that will make enforcement of contact orders work better. But it's pathetic that politicians only start to listen when men dress in superhero costumes."
The better known that F4J became, the closer the media scrutinised its members, notably O'Connor. They soon found dirt to dish. It was revealed that O'Connor had a drink problem and had been a bad husband - something he now freely admits. "I was a lousy husband, absolutely diabolical. I had a penchant for women, for hell-raising, for cocktail bars. I was totally selfish." It's typical O'Connor that, even when saying how appalling his excesses were, it sounds like a boast. After he split up with his wife Sophie, he says he had eight women on the go at one time.
He has not always been reliable about his facts. In the first article O'Connor wrote for the London Evening Standard about F4J in 2003, he claimed that 40% of dads who apply for access every year are denied. In fact, only 713 fathers were refused contact with their children in 2001, while 55,000 were granted it (although many were granted limited contact that they were unhappy with). Other revelations were even more damaging - there were F4J members with restraining orders against them, with convictions for domestic violence, men who had not bothered to see their children even in their allotted contact time.
After larging it in London, O'Connor now lives in a 13th-century cottage in rural Suffolk. At times, he says, running F4J is like running the Samaritans - desperate men phone him through the night. He talks about his sacrifice and pain, the time and money he has put into F4J. What seems to have hurt him most in the F4J civil war is the allegation that he has siphoned off the organisation's money for his own personal gain. "Nothing could be further from the truth. I have - hello - my own design company, and it's very successful thank you very much." If it is so thankless, why does he stick with F4J? He says he is desperate to see the law changed so that fathers get 50-50 access, and admits he does rather enjoy the attention, the notoriety, it brings him.
O'Connor says it was inevitable that F4J would have problematic members. "It is a fucking bitterly corrosive experience and it twists you and it fucks you up and profoundly changes you. I was lucky 'cos I had closure and found peace outside the court system." O'Connor is now on good terms with his ex-wife, has access to his children and has a new girlfriend who is expecting his third child.
Why has he made so many enemies within the group? "There's a huge amount of envy," he says. "Some of the men are jealous that I have access to my children." And then there is his autocratic style of leadership. "I am a total dictator. But in the way that Wellington was a dictator or Churchill was. You've got to have authority and discipline."
As with so many dictators, his problem has been dissent in the ranks. The rebels claimed that F4J had become lazy and conservative, so they quit to form a group that was true to the original ideal.
Meanwhile, O'Connor claimed that the behaviour of some of his members had been intolerable, and that they had been purged from the group. Certainly, F4J has been at the centre of a number of negative news stories. Allegations of racism and misogyny were made against a coordinator of one home counties branch of F4J - O'Connor later expelled him from the group. It was also revealed that members Jason Hatch (the original Batman) and David Pyke had accepted £500 from a woman called Ruth George after promising to publicise her fight over a medical complaint - though she has since been paid back by O'Connor.
"What I find really morally abhorrent is when people start stealing shit, and when people start taking money off pensioners," O'Connor says, "and when people are racist and misogynist, and then you go, 'You know what? Fucking take it.' Honestly, if I thought the whole organisation was like that ... " But he does not believe the whole organisation is like that, and is convinced the split will allow F4J to reposition itself. "Politically, the useful thing that has happened is we can say the nasty guys are out. Now what I need to do is enforce the integrity of what we're about after the purge."
Jim Parton of Families Need Fathers says: "Matt's been made to look respectable by Real FforJ, and every terrorist wants to turn statesman."
O'Connor agrees with that assessment. "I am doing a bit of Gerry Adams stuff, yeah. I'm trying to clean up my act and get my people under control." For O'Connor the time has come to slip out of the superhero outfits and into suits to meet with politicians.
Exactly, says Jeff Skinner, spokesman for Real FforJ. "I think old F4J has gone soft." He asks why F4J were so quiet when the general election was held, then he provides his own answer - they have sold out.
"Hopefully, we can learn from mistakes they made and become a stronger group by not making the same errors twice. We would hope over a short period of time that we would swallow the old group up."
How many members of Real FforJ are there? "Oh, it's very difficult to put a number on it," Skinner says sheepishly. "The honest answer is hardly any because we've just launched a membership drive."
The fathers' movement is facing a crunch time. While F4J undoubtedly seized the headlines, what has it actually achieved? Attitudes may have shifted, politicians are listening, but the only substantial legal change for fathers has been the right to six months' paternity leave - which was never on F4J's agenda in the first place. Over the past few months, there have been various actions (invading the Big Brother studio, scaling Westminster, marching through London with beds to campaign for overnight staying contact between children and fathers after separation) but the stunts seem stale. Meanwhile, almost imperceptibly, Jack O'Sullivan's woolly New Labourish fathering ideals have become mainstream.
Back in Suffolk, O'Connor is talking about the future. He is sure that post-purge, F4J is on the verge of achieving political credibility and a change in the law. But he does not see F4J as a lifelong project. He is talking about establishing a new political party and a possible alliance with the gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, a campaigning hero of his, and the Countryside Alliance. "What I want to do is create something where we're defending people's basic civil liberties. Protecting liberties of the people in this country with a written constitution. Our way of life is under attack."
And then there is the autobiography, and the movie of his life. He isn't joking. He has just sold his life story to Buena Vista for a biopic. This, he says, will hopefully be his reward for all the hours he has put into F4J.
Skinner at Real FforJ says O'Connor has been talking about the biopic for years. "It's no secret that he always wanted to sell his story for a film, and it would make a fantastic film." But he doubts whether it is going to happen in the immediate future. "The only way you can sell it as a film is if you've got a happy ending; if you achieve what you set out to achieve. And Matt O'Connor hasn't managed to do that. He hasn't managed to get the law changed."

28 October 2005, The Australian, Dividing the divorce spoils
By Michael Milne

Divorce is an unpleasant event in most households, but using the correct divorce process can minimise the hurt and save money.
While it does not carry the stigma it used to, divorce is still an unpleasant event in most households. More than just the end of a contract, it can throw a family's finances, relationships and lifestyle into disarray.
Australia has one of the highest divorce rates in the world, a less than salubrious claim that shows little sign of abating. The Australian Bureau of Statistics says that 53,100 divorces were granted in 2003, an increase of 10 per cent on the number granted 10 years earlier.
While statistics don't mean much unless you are one of them, having an understanding of what is involved in divorce and property settlement proceedings could mean that, one day, you avoid the costly mistakes often made by separating spouses.
One such mistake is to let emotion get in the way of rational decision-making. Aiming for a victory in the Family Court can lead to disaster, both emotionally and financially.
"It is our job to represent our client's interests, not their anger," said Joe Healy, Hartley Family Law Services partner.
"A good lawyer will keep their client focused on the main game and formulate strategies to resolve matters in the most cost-effective way."
Fighting a matter in court is time-consuming, stressful and expensive, and should be avoided where possible.
"Less than 5 per cent of cases go to a final hearing, the bulk of these being parenting cases where there are intractable disputes that cannot be resolved," says Paul Doolan, Barkus Edwards Doolan partner.
"However, some financial cases may also need a judicial decision, perhaps the result of complex valuation issues, a significant dispute about the existence of debts, or because parties have widely diverging views about the percentage of assets they should receive."
Healy said that all separating spouses should seek legal advice, at least initially, so they are aware of their legal entitlements:
"We also encourage clients who are still on speaking terms with their former spouse to try to reach agreement directly, without the involvement of lawyers," he said.
"If a person has obtained initial legal advice it means they can commence negotiations with their former spouse on the basis that what they are seeking is within a reasonable range."
For those with more complex family or financial situations, specialist legal advice is usually essential.
The good news is that the Family Court has done much in recent times to help parties and lawyers reach agreement without the need for litigation.
This includes rules about financial disclosure, appointing single experts to solve valuation disputes, and encouraging mediation and counselling.
Mediation can be an important step towards achieving an amicable outcome. It involves appointing an independent person (usually a lawyer) to facilitate and encourage both parties to reach a satisfactory agreement.
"We recommend in almost every case that parties consider options for mediation and counselling to try and resolve financial matters," Doolan said.
"The only exceptions are normally where there are domestic violence issues, or a serious power imbalance between the parties that makes mediation inappropriate."
Divorce Solutions director Brad Corby is an advocate of "collaborative law principles", a process that addresses the legal and financial needs of separating spouses in conjunction with their emotional needs.
"Essentially it involves divorce specialists, including lawyers, financial advisers, forensic accountants and counsellors, working in collaboration for the benefit of both parties," he says.
"If everyone can agree to resolve the divorce out of court and within a set timeframe, then the entire process is quicker, cheaper and less stressful than typical divorce proceedings."
Corby says that in the traditional approach to property settlement, it is common for the various specialists to work against each other in an effort to get the best result for their client.
"It is far better for the lawyers and other professionals to work with each other and the clients so as to identify potential problems and consider the options to resolve them in a way that meets the needs of both clients."
There is no compulsion on either party to make an application to the Family Court or to have any orders made for property settlement.
If parties cannot reach agreement, then a valuer, such as a forensic accountant, can be engaged to determine the net value of assets.
Whether you negotiate the property settlement yourself or leave it to the experts, the objective for both parties should be to ensure that assets and liabilities are settled in a fair, efficient and tax-effective way. If the Family Court is given the task of determining a property settlement, there is no presumption that assets should be divided equally.
Instead, it is a case of weighing up the contributions and future needs of each party to work out a fair settlement.
"After the net assets and resources of each party are ascertained, the court will assess the contributions each party has made," Doolan said.
"In most cases, unless one party has brought some special skill or expertise to the marriage, financial contributions are given the same weight as contributions made by a parent and homemaker.
"The future needs of each party are then examined, which may mean an adjustment is made in favour of one party because they have young children to house and care for, or because the other party earns a much higher salary than they do.
"Finally, the court must be satisfied that the settlement is just and equitable."
Regardless of whether lawyers are involved, the terms of the resolution must be recorded in writing and either approved by the court via a Consent Order or documented in a Binding Financial Agreement.
"It's no use doing a handshake deal or an informal property settlement," Doolan said.
"This exposes you to the risk of the other party starting proceedings against you later, and there may be adverse tax and stamp duty consequences."
A Consent Order can deal with all issues in dispute, including property settlement, spouse maintenance and parenting orders.
Healy said that they are "cheaper and more certain" than financial agreements for property settlement, and they also offer capital gains tax concessions not currently available under a financial agreement.
"Automatic CGT rollover relief applies to assets that are transferred to a spouse in accordance with Family Court orders for property settlement," he says.
One potential issue with Consent Orders relates to spousal maintenance. A Family Court order dealing with spouse maintenance is never final, leaving it open to parties to return later and try to vary or extend the operation of the order.
With some limited exceptions, this does not apply to Financial Agreements so they are more reliable in finalising spouse maintenance.
Corby said that a willingness to negotiate makes all the difference when it comes to settling the bill:
"Depending on the complexity, a process of negotiation and agreement means the costs are generally about 80 per cent less than a traditional divorce, while taking about a quarter of the time," he says.
However, it is wise to steer clear of doing the legal work yourself.
"If people don't have the legal knowledge to properly protect themselves, they will end up losing money rather than saving money," Healy said.
"Usually they either won't obtain the property settlement they are entitled to or they will find themselves in a difficult and costly legal predicament as a result of their actions."

28 October 2005, Sydney Morning Herald, Domestic violence rate up by 50 per cent
Reports of domestic violence have jumped by 50 per cent across NSW in the past seven years, bucking other crime trends, a new study has found.
A report released yesterday by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research says the recorded rate of domestic assault increased by 40 per cent in Sydney and more than 50 per cent state-wide between 1997 and 2004.
In Sydney, the local government areas of Campbelltown, Blacktown and Sydney recorded the highest incidence of domestic violence last year.
The council areas of Bourke, Walgett and Coonamble, all in the state's north-west, recorded the highest rate in the state - at least 3.9 times the state average.
The study found police recorded more domestic assaults between October and March than at other times of the year. Reports peak on January 1, when there are 150 per cent more incidents than on an average day, which yields 70 reports.
It also showed that 36 per cent of incidents involved alcohol, and violence was more prevalent in indigenous communities, public housing areas, and where unemployment and single parents were involved.
The report stated a "surprising" number of cases involved male victims - outnumbering female victims in cases where the victim is under 15 or over 39.
Female victims are most likely to be abused by a current or former partner.
The bureau's director Don Weatherburn said the state needed a comprehensive strategy for dealing with the problem.
"Domestic violence is one of a small group of offences that had bucked the general trend toward lower rates of crime," Dr Weatherburn said.
The report, written by Julie People drawing on NSW Police data, said the increasing level of domestic violence did not appear to be a result of an increased willingness to report the offence to police, or increased willingness by police to record cases.
It found 25,761 incidents of domestic violence were recorded by police last year, with 86 per cent of them occurring in either the victim's or someone else's home.
The peak time for assaults was between 6pm and 9pm, while police received 1 1/2 times more reports of domestic assaults on weekends than on weekdays.
About 70 per cent of the victims of domestic assault were women, while men were the perpetrators in 80 per cent of cases, the study found.
"The risk of domestic assault appears to increase rapidly up until the mid-30s and then to slowly decline,' it said.
In three out of five cases, the offender was a current or former partner of the victim, while in 10 per cent of cases it was a parent or guardian.
Other family members, such as siblings, cousins or aunts and uncles, were responsible for the assault in nearly 20 per cent of cases.
About one-third of the 28,290 victims of domestic assault last year were injured in the attack - mostly bruising, red marks, bleeding and minor cuts.
About 15 per cent of male and female victims suffer more serious injuries, such as fractures, burns and internal injuries.
AAP

28 October 2005, Herald Sun (Melbourne), Lifting the lid on working dads
By Bettina Arndt

There is a new gadget on sale in Europe designed to firmly put men in their place.
WC Ghost is a German-spawned gismo designed to appeal to women who are fed up with their husband's bad aim. It attaches to a toilet seat and, if the lid is lifted, it declares in a stern female voice: "Hello, what are you up to then? Put the seat back down right away. You are definitely not to pee standing up. You will make a right mess."
Never happen here, you say. Perhaps. But there are sure signs the Aussie bloke ain't the man he used to be.
Take football. In many Australian states the traditional games of rugby or league are under siege. The soccer mums are taking over.
Over the past few years there has been a steady increase in the numbers of little boys playing soccer.
And the growth is all about the "mother" factor, according to the Amateur Soccer Federation.
Mothers are pushing their boys into soccer - sometimes AFL - because they object to the violent rugby culture and are convinced soccer is safer. That's quite a turnabout.
Back in the 1950s, mothers wouldn't have had a say in the sports played by their sons.
Any woman who interfered in the choice of her son's sport would have been accused of turning him into a sissy, a mummy's boy.
But now the Saturday morning soccer fields are lined by ex-rugby playing dads who rather sheepishly confess to having nothing to do with their sons' choice of sport.
Similarly, there have recently been complaints from the NSW Cricket Board that boys are no longer playing cricket because their mums aren't letting them.
Cricket takes too much time out of a precious weekend, say the mothers, who are steering the boys towards more manageable summer sports, such as mercifully brief bouts of basketball.
So mums appear to be ruling the roost. It's all pretty surprising considering the big push towards more engaged fathering, with so many men expressing a strong desire to be hands-on dads.
But it's the time crunch that's doing them in.
Pediatrician Dr Terry Brazelton is an American guru with a string of publications to his name advising all aspects of parenting.
He once wrote a poignant article about his own expectations of fathering.
He'd always assumed that he and his wife would make all the decisions together about their children's upbringing.
But as most men do, he ended up remaining in the workforce and working even longer hours to pay the bills, while she took care of their infant children.
The result was he found himself the fifth wheel when it came to decisions about day-to-day parenting.
He and his wife would agree on the children's bedtime, for instance.
But then he'd come home and little Frankie would still be running around well past the chosen hour.
His wife would have some good reason but, for Brazelton it was a sad discovery that he was on the outer, with his wife the expert on his children's behaviour and everyday decisions firmly in her domain. That's the reality.
The average hours worked by men are almost twice that of women, according to recent data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey.
The same survey shows a lot of dads aren't happy about this situation; most fathers working very long hours would prefer not to work as long.
But the women aren't at all keen on their men working part-time. Women are happier if men are in full-time work, conclude the researchers.
So, women appear quite happy to be left in charge, with family matters firmly in their hands.
Gone are the days when dad was home for tea at six o'clock with time to kick a ball in the backyard well into summer evenings. It has already led to a decline in traditional male sports.
And as for those nasty male toilet habits, real Aussie blokes still do it standing, but the time may well come when they don't dare lift the lid.

27 October 2005, Bureau of Crime Statistics & Research NSW, Trends and Patterns in Domestic Violence

A new report on domestic violence released by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) has found that, between 1997 and 2004, the recorded rate of domestic assault in New South Wales (NSW) increased by about 40 per cent in the Sydney Statistical Division and more than 50 per cent in the rest of NSW.
The top three Local Government Areas (LGAs) in the number of domestic violence incidents per head of population in 2004 were Bourke, Walgett and Coonamble. These areas all had rates of domestic violence that were at least 3.9 times the average for the State as a whole. The top three LGAs in the Sydney statistical division were Campbelltown, Blacktown and Sydney.
Police record more domestic assaults in the period between October and March than at other times of the year but the rate of domestic violence peaks on the first of January, with the number of domestic violence incidents being 150 per cent higher on this day than the average daily number reported throughout the year (70/day).
Thirty-six per cent of all domestic assaults recorded by police are alcohol-related. On the first of January, however, more than half the domestic violence incidents recorded by police are alcohol-related.
A surprising number of the domestic violence incidents recorded by police involve MALE VICTIMS. Where the victim is under 15 years of age, or more than 39 years of age, male victims outnumber female victims (in the former case by more than two to one).
Female victims are more likely to be abused by a current or former intimate partner and male victims are more likely to be abused by other family persons and other persons. Almost half of all victims under 15 are abused by a parent or guardian.
The prevalence of domestic violence is higher in areas that have: a higher percentage of Indigenous residents, a higher percentage of sole parents under 25 years of age, a higher percentage of public housing, a higher male unemployment rate and higher rates of residential instability (i.e. population turnover).
Commenting on the findings, the Director of the Bureau, Dr Don Weatherburn, said domestic violence is one of a small group of offences that had bucked the general trend toward lower rates of crime. We need a comprehensive strategy for tackling this offence, he said.
Further enquiries: Dr Don Weatherburn 02 9231 9190 (work), 0419 494 408 (mobile).

25-28 October 2005, Australian Federation of Men's Health and Wellbeing Associations
Manhood Festival 2005

The 2005 Manhood Festival continues the adventure of the Pathways Men's Festival, which has drawn men from all over Australia to the Gold Coast hinterland for 14 years. This year's festival moves to the Sunshine Coast to catch the flow of the Australia New Zealand Men's Gathering, at the Ewan Maddock Dam Reserve, Landsborough on October 25-28. The ANZMG has a long history of bringing together men who are at the leading edge of programmes and work related to modern masculinity. Many of these men will be staying on for the festival.
The festival is organised by the Men's Health and Wellbeing Association of Queensland.
Why go to a Men's Festival?
You want some soul food to satisfy your deep hunger; Someone to really hear you; A creative boost; To wake up and get out of your rut; To fulfill a deep longing; Fellowship and a sense of community; To connect with an authentic life; To unwind, unlearn, let go and let fly.
You think it's just you?
Manhood Festival is an opportunity to listen, learn and share with other men, to connect and explore ways to enrich our own lives and the lives of our loved ones. It is far from a heavy, sombre event. There are many light-hearted, spontaneous moments and the nights are filled with entertainment, fun, and relaxation.
Festival Vision
The Manhood Festival is building a community of dedicated men who have made a commitment to exploring, expanding, and pushing the boundaries of what manhood is and means in contemporary western culture.
How the Festival Works
Men's festivals are about choice. You choose how much and when you want to get involved in any or all of the many workshops and events. There's always much to do and share and plenty of space to take time out for yourself to go for a walk, swim, meditate, or reflect.

Programme
Friday 4pm - 6pm Registration and Open Jam Session,
6pm Formal Welcome, Dinner and Opening Ceremony.
Saturday Morning Meditation or Yoga. Workshops or free time.
Evening Cabaret Show.
Sunday Morning Meditation or Yoga. Workshops.
Closing ceremony. Ends 3pm

More information and registration at
www.menshealthandwellbeing.org.au

25-28 October 2005, Australian Federation of Men's Health and Wellbeing Associations
Australia & New Zealand Men's Gathering 2005 (ANZMG)

The Men's Health and Wellbeing (Queensland) Inc. is proud to host the 2005 Australia & New Zealand Men's Gathering (ANZMG) at the Ewen Maddock Dam Reserve, Landsborough, in the Sunshine Coast Hinterland. This event will run from the 25th - 28th October.
We invite all men who are working with and have a vested interest in the health and wellbeing of men and boys in our contemporary culture.
This will be a wonderful opportunity to meet and network with, on a personal, intellectual as well as heart level, men who have been at the forefront of what is loosely termed 'Men's Work' for the past 15 - 20 years in Australia, New Zealand and internationally.

Presenters confirmed include;
Alan Blackburn, who has been instrumental in growing Manalive New Zealand to it's current strength. Alan has been working with men for over 20 years!
Jed Diamond, International presenter, Director of Menalive in the USA. Jed is author of eight books on mens health and has been a psychotherapist for 40 years!
Stuart Anderson, CEO Men's Resource Centre and developer of the MEND program which assists men deal with violent and abusive behaviour.
Greg Millan, director of the Australasian Men's Health Forum (AMHF) and prominent international presenter on men's health issues.
Troy Stever, an indigenous man who specialises in Aboriginal Men's Health programs and coordinates the Ancestral Trek program, reconnecting indigenous men with their culture. Pete Dominey, who works with the BRAVE Project (Bradford Reducing Anger and Violent Emotions) in the UK. Pete has a MA in Cultural Studies and his dissertation was Masculinities and Violences.
More information and registration at
www.menshealthandwellbeing.org.au

24 October 2005, The American Conservative (USA)
The Fathers' War - They serve their country and lose their children
By Stephen Baskerville

While our country focuses on the war abroad, many of our soldiers fight personal battles here at home - or more accurately, can't fight. They are losing their families and getting little help from an administration that claims to "support the troops" while doing nothing to protect the parental rights of the fathers it sent into combat.
All the services are facing a severe drop in recruitment, and additional recruiters, stepped-up advertising, and bigger bonuses have not reversed the trend. The media points to the war itself, but the shortfall also coincides with a dramatic rise in military divorces, which the Army reports have nearly doubled since 2001. "We've seen nothing like this before," says Col. Glen Bloomstrom, a chaplain who oversees family-support programs. "It indicates the amount of stress on couples, on families, as the Army conducts the global war on terrorism."
It indicates much more than stress. "There most certainly is a relationship between current recruiting problems and an increase in military divorces," says Capt. Gene Thomas Gomulka, a retired Navy chaplain and writer on military marriage.
Muffled by feminist orthodoxy, the Army and media are not disclosing the facts behind these divorces or publicizing the threat they pose to preparedness. The important points are these: the divorces are almost all initiated by wives, the servicemen usually lose their children - which for many is their main incentive for serving their country - and finally, they often become liable to criminal prosecution for child support that is impossible for them to pay.
Laws protecting active-duty servicemen against legal actions are ignored by family courts. Deployed servicemen have virtually no protection against unilaterally initiated divorce proceedings that permanently separate them from their children without any show of wrongdoing. Child kidnapping laws likewise do not protect them from having their children relocated, even to foreign countries, while they cannot be present to defend their parental rights. When they return, they have no necessary right to see their children - and can be arrested for trying to do so - who often join the ranks of the permanently fatherless.
The Lansing State Journal recently reported on Joe McNeilly, a National Guardsman who "would still have his son if he hadn't been deployed," according to Maj. Dawn Dancer, public-affairs officer for the Michigan National Guard. Invoking the correct legal buzzwords, the mother and her lawyer claimed he lost custody not because of his deployment but because of his "parenting skills." Yet his parenting skills were clearly defined in terms of his deployment. The court attested that it stripped him of custody because his wife was the "day-to-day caretaker and decision maker in the child's life" while McNeilly was deployed. His alleged parental deficiencies also proceeded apparently from his duties as a soldier. "My client is making sure to turn off the TV when the news reports deaths in Iraq," the mother's lawyer said, "and (McNeilly) was engaging in behaviors that brought fear." In other words, he was fighting a war.
Even more astounding, vicariously divorced servicemen can be criminally prosecuted for child-support arrearages that are almost impossible not to accrue while they are on duty. Reservists are hit particularly hard because their child-support burdens are based on their civilian pay and do not decrease when their income decreases. Because reservists are often mobilized with little notice, few get modifications before they leave, and modifications are almost never granted anyway. They cannot get relief when they return because federal law prohibits retroactive reductions for any reason. Once arrearages reach $5,000, the soldier becomes a felon and subject to imprisonment.
Further, states assess interest and penalties on arrearages, which may accrue because of human or computer errors. These too cannot be forgiven, so parents who fall behind for reasons beyond their control can never have these debts erased. Because state agencies are federally subsidized based on how much they collect, they have a powerful incentive not to reduce burdens, to extract every penny they can find, and to make "errors."
Deployed soldiers are also targeted by women who falsely designate them as the fathers of their newborns. "The military provides a steady, easily garnished income as well as medical care," says Carnell Smith of Citizens Against Paternity Fraud. It is difficult to contest paternity while fighting a war thousands of miles away.
Spouses have other financial incentives to divorce military personnel. A serviceman must complete 20 years of active service to qualify for retirement pay. A woman married to the man for one day may claim a portion of the pension for life, without regard to fault or need, simply by filing for divorce. As David Usher points out in Men's News Daily, there is no limit on how many times a woman can do this. (Men have done it too.)
None of this is hypothetical. Many veterans face such hardships now:

• "Gary," an 18-year veteran with an unblemished military and civilian record, was stripped of his child by a California court while deployed in Afghanistan as a Navy SEAL, according to Fox News. Columnist Glenn Sacks reports that he is now being bankrupted by child support and legal fees.
• Bobby Sherrill, a father of two from Parkton, North Carolina, was held hostage in Iraq for nearly five months. The night he returned from the Persian Gulf he was arrested for failing to pay $1,425 in child support while captive.
• While serving in Iraq, Taron James was ordered to pay support for a child he knew could not be his, and DNA tests confirmed his claim. The district attorney and Los Angeles County Child Support Services nevertheless seized his tax refund annually, blocked him from renewing his notary-public license - which caused him to lose his job - ruined his credit, blocked him from obtaining a passport, and forced him to drop out of college.

These are not aberrations. They proceed from the ideologically and bureaucratically driven logic of the custody-support industry, which depends for its justification on removing children and criminalizing the fathers.
The Army's response has been to spend millions on therapeutic gimmicks in a futile effort to reduce the divorces: counseling services, support groups, romantic getaways, even advice to single soldiers on how to pick partners wisely.
"Our hope is to change the culture," says Bloomstrom, who also adopts civilian-sector jargon. "Initially there's a stigma about any program to do with relationships. We need to teach that there's nothing wrong with preventive maintenance for marriage."
The Army is burying its head in the sand. We can only hope that communications workshops and cultural understanding are not the approach they take to opponents in the field. They do so in this case because the threat is not Islamic radicals but feminist radicals.
Those affected see through the obfuscation. "This is outrageous," said Kathy Moakler, deputy director of government relations of the National Military Family Association. "It's a scary precedent to set, charging the parent with abandonment because he was deployed."
Obviously these men have not abandoned their children. Yet what justifies criminal penalties, if it is not to catch those who have? If these fathers are being stripped of their children and criminalized through no fault of their own, why should we assume that others are being treated any less unjustly? This points to the larger issue, since the obvious injustices to soldiers, sailors, and airmen are simply the logical next step from what has been inflicted on others for years. The dysfunctional effects on military efficiency are also paralleled elsewhere in society.
The flight of men from the military strikingly parallels the flight of men from marriage, with its attendant drop in birth rates, that has come to preoccupy policymakers up to the level of president. Men are staying away from both institutions for the same reasons: for many they have become a ticket to jail.
The National Marriage Project at Rutgers University reports a continued drop in the marriage rate. They too ignore the criminal penalties that men can incur when they marry, instead urging therapy and formulaically excoriating men for their lack of "commitment." Citing the Rutgers study, Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services Wade Horn promotes federal marriage programs inculcating "conflict-resolution skills."
Men do not risk their lives, fight, and die for a country that is an abstraction. They fight and die for their families and homes and freedom, all of which are being taken away by the courts. "Sometimes I wonder what I risked my life for [in Afghanistan]," "Gary" tells Sacks. "I went to fight for freedom but what freedom and what rights mean anything if a man doesn't have the right to be a father to his own child?"
Gordon Dollar was a reservist for 16 years in the National Guard and Naval Reserves. "I have friends that are very motivated and dedicated people, Frogmen/SEALS, Green Berets, and Rangers, and they were getting out too," he tells Usher. "I think people who served this country are feeling betrayed by it, and see no point in serving it."
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has just signed legislation protecting military personnel in custody and child-support cases. Missouri is the only other state to protect reservists on active duty by requiring automatic adjustments in their child support. More states need to act.
Federally, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, which protects deployed military persons from other civil suits, should be amended to include specifically the actions of divorce courts and child-support bureaucracies. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, designed to prevent parental kidnappings, could also be modified to protect service personnel whose children are snatched away. Finally, Congress should repeal the infamous Bradley Amendment, so that judges can exercise reasonable discretion to modify child-support debts downward as well as upward in cases in patent injustice.
It is ironic that, as we defend a questionable military policy with patriotic appeals to support the troops who must execute it, we allow the breakdown of traditional morality and the erosion of ancient legal protections for the family to ruin those same troops once they return home. This undermines not only the military, of course, but also the patriotic appeals. But even more, in the long run it also undermines our national defense. It would be difficult to find a single policy that so simultaneously weakens the nation within and without.
What we are seeing here is only one vindication of now forgotten prophecies from critics like G.K. Chesterton that easy divorce would destroy not only the family but civilization itself. Yet as the prediction is fulfilled before our eyes, our leaders obfuscate it with clichés and psychobabble.
The much-belabored parallel with Rome is irresistible. External threats are successfully withstood until the internal moral decay that accompanies the breakdown of republican freedom and virtue. For Islamists who regard the West as a morally and sexually decadent culture, the prospect must be encouraging.

20-23 October 2005, Australian Federation of Men's Health and Wellbeing Associations
Manhood 2005 Conference Events Restructure
The Men's Health and Wellbeing Association of Queensland regrets to announce the cancellation of the Manhood 2005 Conference (Oct 20-23) and the redirection of the conference themes and outcomes to the Australian & New Zealand Men's Gathering (ANZMG) commencing on October 25 and finishing October 28.
This decision has not been undertaken lightly, and in the end this move was made to the ANZMG because the Association faced unacceptable commercial risk in continuing to push forward with the conference.
On behalf of the association committee, we deeply regret any inconvenience this may cause you and hope for your continued support and involvement in these ensuing events, The Australian & New Zealand Men's Gathering (Oct 25-28), and The Manhood Festival (Oct 28-30). Both these traditionally men-only events are very familiar for us as we have run fourteen of these gatherings in the past and they are gaining much momentum. We are excited at the shift of focus we find ourselves in!
Once again we humbly offer our deepest apologies if this change in proceedings causes any serious inconvenience to you. We also deeply regret that through this decision, women will be unable to contribute and participate at this time. Please contact us if you need further information, otherwise our website will be updated in the coming week and you will receive updates as we progress.

19 October 2005, The Australian, Child support: overseas, overlooked
By Patricia Karvelas

Three-quarters of divorced parents living overseas are not paying child support to their children in Australia.
And the number of divorced parents leaving the country has increased significantly, the Child Support Agency has found.
The agency has recorded a 20 per cent increase in its international caseload in the past financial year alone.
David Mole, the agency's international director, said yesterday that globalisation meant more divorced parents would leave the country, making the debt levels grow even higher.
The debt for outstanding child support now stands at $22.4million, with 4200 single-parent families in Australia not receiving any child support payments from the parent overseas.
In the past financial year, the agency collected only $5.6 million from parents living abroad for their children in Australia.
Matt Miller, the agency's general manager, said the agency had collected $8.6 million from divorced parents in Australia for children who had moved overseas with their other parent.
"Our overseas counterparts are not as effective at collecting child support as we are for them," he said.
Mr Miller said this was now one of the "significant areas" in terms of the overall level of outstanding child support payments. "This is the area that's growing - the domestic area is actually coming down," he said.
Mr Mole said it was particularly hard to get support payments from parents living in larger countries such as the US and Britain.
There are 600 parents in Britain not paying child support, totalling $4 million in debt, and 300 in the US who owe a total of $2.1 million.
"Going through a court process in the UK or US makes it harder - they are obviously much bigger countries," Mr Mole said yesterday.
"Their focus is on their domestic situation rather than this international scene, whereas we are seeing this as one of the significant areas for us in terms of the overall level of outstanding child support payments."
He said Australia was taking on a significant influx of New Zealand cases.
"The New Zealand child support agency is similar to the Australian child support agency. It has strong links with its tax office and has access to data which assists it with tracing parents," he said.
"Once the parent is over there, then our powers are extremely limited and we really can't do much unless we find an asset here or we find an income stream."
Mr Mole said "fundamental changes" would have to be made to Australia's agreements with other nations so the agency could efficiently collect money from parents living overseas.
"It would require some fundamental changes to that particular agreement - not to say that couldn't happen, but there's a lot of work to be done in order to get there," he said.
However, the new reciprocal agreement between Australia and New Zealand has resulted in $22million in child support arrears being sent to Australia in the past financial year.
And a local debt-collection initiative snared an additional $51.5 million in outstanding child support payments.

18 October 2005, Nine National News, Victorian domestic violence laws amended

Victorian police would be able to detain a person suspected of domestic violence for up to six hours, under amendments to the Crimes Act introduced into state parliament.
Attorney-General Rob Hulls said the changes would allow family members to remain at home rather than being forced to move when applying for an intervention order.
In rare cases police would be allowed to detain a suspect for up to 10 hours.
"Giving police holding powers will bridge the gap in protection between police attendance and legal protection being put in place," Mr Hulls said.
"At all levels of the justice system we must provide an environment where those who have experienced family violence feel safe to come forward."
Figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics(ABS) Women's Safety Survey show one in five women are affected by domestic violence.
Mr Hulls said the holding power would allow police to direct a person to remain, or go to and remain, at a place stated by a police officer.
If the person refuses to comply, police would be able to apprehend and detain the person.
Jamie Gardiner, vice president of Liberty Victoria has cautiously welcomed the move, but had concerns it could be abused.
"We are simply concerned there should be proper safeguards built into this legislation, which we have not yet seen, which makes sure that frivolous or vexatious complaints are appropriately punished and that people whose liberties are restricted, as it turns out, unnecessarily will have suitable redress," Mr Gardiner said.
"If these conditions are satisfied, then strict time-limited powers such as these, could well be an appropriate solution to a real problem which we understand and realise does need to be addressed".
AAP

17 October 2005, Irish Times (Ireland), How State usurps role of fathers
By John Waters

Corrupt ideologies survive through slogans that tell lies. We don't need to go back to the USSR to demonstrate this, there are many examples in our own "modern" Ireland. The Irish Independent had a good one last week - a mocked-up "Wanted" poster illustrating a report about so-called "deadbeat dads". It had a photograph of the face of a young man, with the word "Wanted" and the figure "70,000" underneath. The caption read: "Wanted: 70,000 Deadbeat Dads for Failure to Pay Child Maintenance. Contact: The Department of Social Welfare."
If such a poster targeted single mothers, of course, the whole country would be up in arms; but let's not waste energy drawing attention to a double standard that everyone takes for granted. I note, too, that the report, by the newspaper's fine social affairs correspondent, David Quinn, contained just one reference to "deadbeat dads", which was accompanied by the qualifier "so-called".
The devil was chiefly in the illustration and headline. The report was summarised in the headline's allegation that "70,000 fathers are failing to pay maintenance towards their children". The report stated: "Almost 80,000 people, overwhelmingly women, are in receipt of the one-parent family payment. But in each case the absent father is required to pay towards the upkeep of the child if he can afford it. However, figures from the Department of Social and Family Affairs show that only 9,600 fathers are doing so." Hence, it was alleged, 70,000 fathers were "flouting the law and social welfare rules".
Here is a vivid illustration of the distance that can lie between fact and truth. To qualify for the one-parent family payment, the claimant must - theoretically - prove that she is bringing up her child or children "without the support of the other parent". I have heard of no case where the department has taken the most rudimentary steps to ascertain whether the so-called "absent father has declined to support his child or children.
When did the department last contact such a man and ask him if he was willing to marry the mother, or to accept joint, or even sole custody of his child/children? Not one of, these 70,000 men owes mothers or the State a cent, because there can be no legal obligation on a father to pay "maintenance" for children he has not refused to support in these ways.
Many fathers do make payments to mothers, however, for reasons that should disquiet us profoundly. Over the past decade, I have been contacted by an average of perhaps a dozen fathers a month, usually because they are living separately from their children and are being denied contact. A question that always arises in these conversations is whether they are paying towards their children's upkeep. Almost invariably they are, and usually such payments are in cash because a declared payment is in part deductible from the mother's social welfare allowance.
Where the rights of a father and/or a child are being abused, I advise the cessation of such payments until the abuses stop, but many fathers are terrified of endangering the fragile relationships they have with their children. A man from Mars might approach this with the naive view that there is an interesting journalistic angle in the abuse of children by mothers to obtain money: the terms "ransom", "fraud" and "blackmail" might spring to his politically untutored lips.
But this is just the start of it. The real "story" is that, for two decades, the Irish State has been usurping the role of fathers by, in effect, offering inducements to mothers to rear children alone. By asserting that the father is not involved with his children, a mother can obtain an array of benefits and allowances.
To compete with the Stepfather State, a father nowadays needs to be earning at least twice the average industrial wage, just so it makes "sense" from the mother's perspective to have him around. Needless to say, many couples continue to cohabit surreptitiously while the woman claims the benefits anyway.
Over a third of mothers claiming the one-parent family allowance are separated or divorced, many having deserted their husbands, who were never given the option of continuing to support their children. In granting such women the one-parent family payment, the Department of Social Welfare is acting illegally, because it is a principle of benefits law that deserters should not be allowed to profit from their desertion.
Having sanctioned such payments, the Department goes on to demonise and pursue the deserted husband, designating him a "liable relative" and "maintenance debtor", when in truth he is the injured party whose children have been abducted.
There are rich pickings here for journalists seeking interesting, indeed sensational, material about the corruption of public policy. Instead, our media provides the corruption with the covering fire of cliché and half-truth, turning the spotlight on the innocent, while the criminals sleep the sleep of the just.
For in-depth analysis of the one-parent family allowance, see the website of the National Men's Council of Ireland,
www.family-men.com

16 October 2005, The Edmonton Journal (Canada), Trading Places: The Post-Divorce Reality
By Liane Faulder

With the growing trend towards shared custody after divorce, more children are dancing the back-and-forth boogie. What is the impact on the kids? Just ask them ...
Edmonton - When Nathan Evans-Bill was about three, his parents separated, and for a long time the boy didn't see much of his dad. A police officer who worked shifts, Nathan's dad was only able to manage every second weekend with Nathan and his older sister - and even that limited amount of time sometimes was sacrificed to work.
"I remember missing my dad a lot," Nathan, now 18, says. "He'd come by and then he'd leave and it was really hard."
When Nathan was 10 and his sister was 13, things changed. Their dad switched to a position that didn't involve shifts, bought a house a 10-minute walk from their mother's home in Sherwood Park and began having the children at his home half the time. "I remember thinking it was really great because I'd see more of my dad," Nathan says.
Eight years later, Nathan is officially an adult and has graduated from high school. But he still lives in two homes, still splits his time between mom's place and dad's place on alternating weeks. Though his sister moved back in full time with her mother when she was 15 or 16, Nathan can't see himself ever choosing one home over the other.
"It's just because I love both my parents and I couldn't see myself living at one house," he says, noting he'll wait until he gets his own place to live in one home.
Nathan's experience of shared physical custody is increasingly relevant as society shifts gears in response to the high divorce rate. Families breaking apart are scrambling to make the hard landing of divorce as soft as possible for all involved.
For some children, living in two homes is a workable arrangement that gives them the chance to stay well-connected to both parents. It worked so well for Nathan that he hasn't been willing to give it up.
Other kids struggle. A recent BBC documentary in Britain quotes a 10-year-old child who lives in two homes as saying he feels like a toy his parents have to share, and he fantasizes about going away to boarding school to avoid being shunted back and forth like a train between stations.
Because the trend is relatively recent, it's too early to determine whether shared physical custody has long-term effects on children.
Though terms like shared parenting are finding their way into the lexicon, families like Nathan's are still uncommon. A 2004 government study of 25,000 Canadians called the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth found that in court-resolved disputes, children up to the age of 15 were living in two homes only six per cent of the time in 1999 (up from three per cent in 1995).
Shared living arrangements are more common when custody is settled out of court. In cases where parents came to their own agreement without legal intervention, the survey found about 12 per cent of children living in shared custody situations in 1999, up from six per cent four years earlier.
Marla Miller, an Edmonton lawyer and registered family mediator, says more of her clients are considering a half-time split of time with the children post-divorce. While there is no official, legal definition of shared physical custody, in practice, it means the children live with one parent at least 40 per cent of the time and the rest of the time with the other parent. The 40-per-cent figure is the threshold for a different set of child support guidelines set out by the federal government. Shared custody is distinct from joint custody, which means that parents make joint decisions about their children's health, education and extracurricular activities, but doesn't necessarily mean the kids split their time equally between two homes.
"There's been a tremendous shift in public perception and court perception and even our understanding of what's best for children," says Miller of the motivation for raising children in two houses. "A lot of courts start with a premise that parents should be doing more shared parenting."
Miller has seen families make shared custody work well, even when it looks a bit weird from the outside. One divorced mom and dad had two suites, upstairs and downstairs, in the same house. The children moved between the top and bottom floors every other week. Miller has seen 50/50 situations in which stepchildren go back and forth with birth children after a second marriage crumbles. She says success depends on many factors, including the personalities of the children and the parents' ability to work out their disputes.
"It's such uncharted territory," says Miller.
When Mary was eight years old, her parents told her they were separating and that she'd be living in two homes. In the beginning, Mary wasn't keen - until her dad said the word "hamster."
"At first, I felt like I don't want to do this, I'd rather all of us lived together," says Mary, now 13 and in Grade 8. "But my dad said, 'you'll get more animals' and at that age, I was, yeah, more animals! I was so excited to get my hamster."
Although hamsters don't figure prominently in psychological studies, there is much new research about shared parenting after divorce. While courts and mental health experts once adhered to the "tender years" theory - that young children needed to be with their mothers full time - decades of social science research has shown the importance of secure relationships with both parents.
Extended separations from either parent are bad for youngsters, says American psychologist Joan Kelly, because they threaten the secure attachment a child needs to feel to both parents to be well-adjusted. Children also need to be with their mothers and fathers in a variety of settings - at the playground, at bedtime - to develop a strong bond.
Kelly has interviewed hundreds of children over the years as a mediator, counsellor and researcher. She says as long as both parents are adequate, a shared parenting setup can work well. In the past, child development experts said living in two homes was confusing. Kelly insists that's not true.
"Mental health professionals wring their hands but the evidence is that it's not confusing and furthermore, the kids like it," Kelly says in an interview from California. "And they like it because they can continue to have meaningful relationships with both parents. That's the issue here."
She says that while only about 10 per cent of U.S. children live in shared custody situations, 93 per cent of kids interviewed in one study were satisfied with the situation. Going back and forth between two homes is "not a big deal."
"What they say is that, yes, sometimes it's a hassle. But it's worth it. They understand the trade-off between inconvenience and close relationships with both parents in a way that adults haven't as much understood."
There have also been concerns about children who live in two homes with vastly different rules and discipline techniques - or lack of them. This is not necessarily a problem, says Kelly.
"We need to understand that kids are subjected to different rules and practices in the married family. And they are subject to different rules from scout leaders, teachers and hockey coaches. As long as the differences are not extreme and create conflict, kids can cope with different practices."
Some basic things like bed times, however, need to be consistent between homes. Kelly also believes each home needs two sets of clothing, and sports and school equipment, such as computers.
"Only homework and backpacks from school should be going back and forth," she says.
Kelly says shared parenting has advantages for children over traditional, sole-custody arrangements. "There is some evidence that when parents co-parent with shared physical custody, they tend to date more when they are off-duty and they are able to do that without exposing their kids to serial dates, which is good.
"... They also tend to wait longer before they pair up again, probably because they're more absorbed with being parents."
Aiden, 11, also sees advantages to living in two homes. He says a change of scene, and parents, can be a good thing. Every Sunday after supper he gets that chance when he switches between his mother's home, a bright and artsy basement suite on Edmonton's south side, and his father's place, a bungalow just a few blocks from Aiden's school.
"Sometimes a week with them drives me nuts after a while," he says.
Aiden says, flat out, that he wishes he and his folks all lived together. But he's talked to his parents about that, and they say that's not going to happen. So he has learned to enjoy different things about the different homes - the dog at dad's, better cooking at mom's, a bit more leeway on how late he can be out riding his bike at dad's, cool hiking and photographic excursions at mom's.
Aiden says his advice for families considering shared custody would be to have similar rules between homes because he finds it annoying when one parent cares about elbows on the table and the other doesn't.
"If one house has rules, it should apply for both houses," he says. "I get used to being here and then I get to my dad's house, I have to learn all over again."
Whether shared parenting is suitable for children depends on many things, including their age.
"Would you do a week on and a week off with an eight-month-old? A couple came in here and wanted that," says Dr. Kent Taylor, co-ordinator of family mediation services for Alberta Justice. "And can you do a week on and a week off with a 15-year-old? A lot of teenagers won't let you."
Megan Evans-Bill, Nathan's sister, found going back and forth didn't suit her lifestyle when she reached high school. She started spending more time at her mom's and, at 18, chose to live there full time. For one thing, Megan found different rules in two houses hard to take.
"When people are married, they make up their house rules together and go with that," says the 21-year-old nursing student. "But my parents had been divorced for so long, they had very different ways of doing things. Some things I could get away with at one house, at the other house, I got into trouble."
Megan also worried she was missing out on things with her friends when she lived in two houses. "It's silly little things, but they wear you down. Like friends would want to phone but wouldn't know where you were to call, so they just wouldn't," she says. "After a while, you'd rather stay in one place and not have to worry about it."
Some research shows that teenagers like Megan, whose focus has shifted from the family to friends, may not adapt well to living in two homes. The federal government survey on children and youth noted that shared living setups for families who split when the kids are in secondary school are "less durable."
On the other end of the shared custody spectrum are babies, who child psychology experts say need frequent contact with mom and dad, at least every second or third day, after a divorce. As kids get older, however, they are able to spend longer periods apart from either parent.
Mary remembers she didn't want to be away from either mom or dad for long when her family first separated, so she spent two days at a time at each of their homes. Later, they went to a three- and then a four-day split. But by the time she was in Grade 6, Mary found that confusing.
"I had a hard time keeping track of it all, it was like, what day is this? Where do I go today?" she recalls.
Now Mary switches houses every Sunday. She still finds some things frustrating about living in two homes. Though Mary keeps two complete sets of clothes, one at each place, she just has one purse and one camera.
It's awkward if she forgets those things at the other house, because her parents live a 10-minute drive apart. Still, if she could wave a magic wand, Mary isn't sure what she'd change.
"My mom remarried and I love that family and my dad has a girlfriend and she lives with us now and I love her and her kids," she says. "I don't know what I'd change. I don't like the fact that I have two of everything because I have to keep track of everything. ... But I'm used to it now."
Dr. Brian Hindmarch, who does assessments of families battling for custody in court, says most children are "inherently quite resilient and can cope with surprising amounts of change."
The secret? A parent's ability to co-operate and put the children's interests first.
"If you have that, you see children who can adapt well and who are psychologically healthy living in two homes," says the Edmonton psychologist.
However, Hindmarch has worked with mothers and fathers who are in back-and-forth parenting arrangements even as they are in court fighting to limit or exclude the other parent. Under those circumstances, the back-and-forth can be hard on kids.
"Children often have strong bonds and love each parent equally," says Hindmarch. "But some parents aren't happy with the fact that the children love the other parent equally."
Hindmarch recalls one parent in a 50/50 custody situation insisting the children take off the clothes they had been wearing at the other parent's home as soon as they came in the door.
"These things take on a symbolism to warring parents," says Hindmarch.
Hindmarch says he has counselled children who say they feel like "an object being fought over."
One Edmonton elementary school principal who sees a variety of shared parenting arrangements among students says the tighter the post-divorce finances, the more difficult the experience will be for children living in two homes. The principal recalls a recent situation in which a child in a shared parenting arrangement took his video game player from his father's house to his mother's house during an exchange. Later, the mother's boyfriend pawned the game player.
Some parents don't have the maturity to deal with shared parenting, which can involve frequent contact with the other side.
Kent Taylor of Family Mediation Services recalls witnessing, at the hockey arena, two divorced parents fighting over who would tie their child's skates. One parent said "it's my week and you shouldn't be here" as the child sat miserably on the bench in his hockey equipment.
Taylor says some parents also turn the school into a forum for their disputes, objecting if the other one volunteers in the classroom when it's not her or his week to be responsible for the children. "That's not shared parenting."
Miller, the Edmonton lawyer, says that sometimes shared parenting is more about what the parents want than what's best for the kids. She says some people who request shared custody are motivated by paying less child support if they have their children 40 per cent of the time. When clients ask to draft an agreement for shared parenting, Miller suggests they look at the reality of their lives.
[Note: Some parents who request sole custody are motivated by receiving more child support if they have their children most of the time! ME.]
"I encourage people to think about the details first. Who is going to coach? Who is going to take a day off when the kid is sick?" she says. "The actual residence tends to become apparent when the details have been sorted out."
Shalegh, who is nine years old and in Grade 4, remembers the first time she went to her mom's new townhouse after her parents separated about nine months ago. On the bunk bed at her mom's was a new doll, still in its box, and a fluffy stuffed puppy with its pink tongue sticking out. The doll was a replica of a favourite toy from Shalegh's dad's house - a soft-bodied pink satin baby with turquoise eyes and a ruffled bonnet that Shalegh received on her first Christmas.
Shalegh remembers being "kind of sad and kind of mad, too," about the new living arrangements, which see her going back and forth between her parents' homes every four days. But the baby doll helped ease the transition. So did talking to a child psychologist who encouraged Shalegh to draw pictures in a small sandbox of how she felt about living in two houses.
"In one of the pictures I put a person and a person and there was a ball and I said I felt like I was a ball being tossed from one place to another, one place to another," recalls Shalegh.
She still feels like that from time to time. But Shalegh has control over some things in her own life. She decides how long she'll be away from her folks; this summer, Shalegh found two-week holidays with each parent too long to bear and next summer, she says, one week apart will be long enough. And if Shalegh wants to see her dad when she's at her mom's, all three of them will meet for supper.
[Note: I wonder how children of sole custody parents feel, and what pictures they'd draw in a small sandbox?! ME.]
Edmonton psychologist Dr. Stephen Carter says there is a "wide range of normal" when it comes to sharing physical custody of children.
"It doesn't matter if they're living in a cardboard box in the river valley, the most important thing is how the parents are getting along," says Carter.
He says parents must consider their children's emotional well-being when thinking about the variety of post-divorce options.
He loses patience with parents who insist on equal time with their children, and then aren't there for the child at that time. People who work shifts or are out of town a lot may find it hard to manage shared custody.
"The part that makes me really upset is when there is a perfectly good parent available but the kids are in day care because it's not their week with that parent. Those people are using the children as possessions," says Carter.
"... It's not about 'my way' or 'your way,' but a way that works for the child."
Even children who seem to do well in shared custody will still find it tough from time to time. Transitions between households can involve tears and tantrums.
"It's a time of mixed-up feelings for children, excitement at seeing one parent and sadness at leaving another," says Carter.
"Some people may misinterpret that and begin a crusade against another parent for the 'good' of the child."
In the end, the back-and-forth simply doesn't work for some families. According to the federal government's survey, only eight per cent of children whose parents had been separated six years or more still lived in two households. The survey didn't ask families why things changed.
If Nicholas was advising half-time parents, he'd tell them to listen carefully to what their kids want.
The 14-year-old from St. Albert lives in two homes about a 15-minute walk apart and thinks it's important for parents to be flexible about movement between the two houses. Nicholas goes to either home when he likes, regardless of which home he's staying in at the time. If he has a school project, for instance, he likes to be at his mom's because she does homework with him.
"I think (parents) should be open, if the kids want to go over to the other house, they should be allowed to do that," says Nicholas.
As they age, children who live in two homes may learn to appreciate how hard their parents have tried to keep things going smoothly.
Nathan Evans-Bill is the only person he knows whose family did the back-and-forth and he's aware it wasn't always easy for his parents.
"They've made it work and a lot of families can't bring themselves to resolve their differences and they end up despising each other," he says. "They play their kids against the other parent. That's why some kids get screwed up."

16 October 2005, The Age, Family troubles? Call Ruddock's hotline
By Phillip Hudson, Political Correspondent

Free telephone legal advice about relationships, divorce and being aparent will be provided by the Federal Government as part of its overhaul of family law.
The Government will spend $18.6 million on the family relationship advice line, which will be launched next year.
The hotline will be promoted as an alternative to seeing a lawyer, and Attorney-General Philip Ruddock hopes it will help cut the high financial cost of family breakdown. He promised the phones would be answered by qualified experts who could deal with relationship, parenting and separation issues. They would be able to provide basic legal advice and refer people to other services.
For parents involved in a relationship breakdown or separation, the hotline will provide advice on children's needs and sorting out parenting arrangements.
The hotline will complement the 65 family relationship centres that will be opened around the country.

15 October 2005, Daily Yomiuri Online (Japan)
Globalization of divorce: The downside of international romance turned sour
The Yomiuri Shimbun

With the number of international marriages rising rapidly, the number of divorces involving international couples is also on the increase, rising by almost 100 percent over the past 10 years. Of course, divorce is always hard, but in the case of an international couple, the legal differences between the two nations involved can make it all the more complicated and painful.
Four years ago Tomoko (not her real name) married John (not his real name) - an English-language teacher from the United States, whom she had been dating for one year.
Tomoko, now 32, who then attended a class at an English conversation school, fell in love with John, 35, for his positive outlook and straightforward way of expressing his love for her.
But after about 1-1/2 years of marriage, John unexpectedly told her that he was planning to enter a business school in the United States. The news came just after she had quit her job to give birth to their first son, and Tomoko left for the United States feeling somewhat uneasy about the future.
In the United States, her husband began to find fault with everything she did and said, and began to keep a close eye on how she spent money. Whenever she objected to his behavior, he would fly into a rage, using foul language and telling her, "Go home, go back to Japan! But if you take my son with you, I'll have you arrested for kidnapping."
Unable to bear her husband's verbal abuse, Tomoko sought refuge in a shelter for foreign women, where a counselor said her husband was guilty of domestic violence, even if it was only verbal abuse, and advised her to return to Japan as soon as possible.
Tomoko returned to Japan with her son. Like most countries, U.S. law prohibits one parent from taking a child outside the country without the consent of the other parent. For this reason, Tomoko told her husband that she was only returning to Japan temporarily.
In Japan she decided to seek a divorce and approached a local family court regarding divorce mediation.
Meanwhile, her husband said that Tomoko had lied, saying that she had never intended to return to the United States. He insisted that he was not at fault in any regard, and did not know why she wanted a divorce.
It took six months for the pair's lawyers to reach agreement in a process that left Tomoko physically and mentally exhausted, she says.
Her husband finally agreed to divorce with recognition of Tomoko's parental rights, on condition that he be allowed to see his son once a year.
"It was very difficult for both of us to deal with the differences between our respective cultures and values. Although it was very hard for me, I obtained a divorce thanks to the help of the shelter staff in the United States, who gave me good advice. My lawyers in Japan were also great, dealing with the problem as if it was their own," Tomoko says.

Splitting up is hard to do
According to statistics from the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry, there were 36,039 international marriages registered in 2003 - up 30 percent from 1995 - while divorces involving international couples numbered 15,256 in 2003, double the number in 1995.
As a proportion of all marriages and divorces in Japan in 2003, international couples made up one in every 20 marriages and one in every 18 divorces.
Among the international marriages and divorces, China, the Philippines and Korean residents in Japan provided the largest number of brides for Japanese men, while Koreans, Americans and Chinese were most common nationals to marry Japanese women, according to the statistics.
"International couples involved in divorce problems have to face twice the usual hardship because of different laws, cultural gaps and differing customs. They often have no one to consult about their situation and the number of those who end up fretting about the whole process on their own is very large," said freelance writer Hisako Matsuo, who has been running a Web site on the subject of international divorce since 1999. Matsuo also recently published a book on the subject, Kokusai Rikon (International Divorce, Shueisha Inc.).
Japanese law stipulates that in the event of a disputed international divorce it is the law of the country where the couple usually reside that is applied.
Other countries, however, have different laws governing what happens in this situation, and couples residing outside Japan need to be aware of this.
In Japan, the law generally does not permit the husband or wife who is to blame for the split-up to file for divorce. In Europe and the United States, however, either partner may file for divorce if the marriage has collapsed, regardless of who is to blame. In Britain, a couple normally have to live separately for a certain period before they are allowed to divorce.
In Tomoko's case, her husband finally consented to a divorce. But there are cases of Japanese wives who, like Tomoko, live in the United States and return to Japan with their child without telling their husbands of their plans, who are then sued by their husbands for kidnapping.
The biggest problems can come in connection with disputes over visiting rights.
Mika (not her real name) married an American in Japan immediately after her graduation from college. She gave birth to a daughter three years later.
Her husband Mike (not his real name) worked at a foreign-affiliated company when they married, but then changed jobs several times, moving to Britain, the United States and then back to Japan.
A rift developed between Mika, now 38 and Mike, now 40, that deepened as the husband showed little sign of caring about his family. Mika also became stressed about the problems of raising a child overseas.
The couple returned to Japan two years ago. One day Mike suddenly announced that he was leaving Mika, telling her he wanted to start his life anew.
Mika was so shocked and depressed that she could not look after their daughter, who was then 10 years old. She went back to her parents' home, leaving the daughter in the care of her mother-in-law, who happened to be visiting Japan from the United States.
Mike then asked a local family court for divorce mediation, saying he would prohibit Mika from seeing her daughter if she did not agree to his terms.
"If you don't agree to a divorce, I will never let you see your daughter ever again," he said. Mika agreed to use the mediation, which ended in failure. Mike then filed for divorce.
In this case, Mike might have thought that Japanese law would help him prevent Mika from having access to the child, since Japanese law gives sole parental rights to either the mother or father in the event of divorce.
That contrasts with the United States, where parents often get joint custody of their children after divorce.
This summer, Mika went to the United States to sue for parental rights and for the right to see her daughter. This gives rise to an odd situation in which the American husband is using a Japanese court, while the Japanese wife is going to court in the United States.
"I went to court because of my desire to see my daughter. Many people whose child is taken away by their spouse may let the matter lie. But because I know how much my daughter loves me, I really want to win the suit," Mika says.
"Issues over children in divorces of international couples are more serious than in the case of Japanese couples," says Mikiko Otani, an attorney with extensive experience in handling international divorces.
"Legal attempts to secure rights over a child in another country are rarely successful, and it's not uncommon for one partner to refuse the other access to the child, regardless of the legal rights," Otani explained.
Japan has not ratified the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction in the Hague Conference on Private International Law.
Thus, if your children are taken out of Japan by your spouse, Japan has no legal right to ask the countries involved for the return of your children.
Issues regarding child-care expenses and compensation can also be complex. The Hague conference is now deliberating a draft convention on establishing agencies to collect such monies by the government of each country.
Japan has been examining the draft since May last year, but hasn't decided yet whether to ratify it, according to the Justice Ministry's Civil Affairs Bureau.

Marry in haste, repent at leisure
International marriages often get into trouble because the couple don't know enough about each other before they tie the knot.
Takeshi (not his real name), 40, was charmed by a 24-year-old Filipino woman for her cute, demure manner. He married her 1-1/2 years ago in Japan.
After marriage, however, he soon saw a different side to his wife, who would do little housework. When taken to task for it, she strongly objected.
She also asked for a large amount of money, saying her father had suddenly been taken ill and hospitalized. She secretly sent money to her family in the Philippines several times.
Under the Philippines' extended family system, it is quite normal for those who have money to help relatives who do not. But for Japanese people, this practice is hard to understand.
Takeshi got a divorce by mutual agreement, the process being comparatively quick and easy because the couple had no offspring and had only been married for a short period.
Takeshi now regrets not making much more effort to get to know his former wife before they got married.
Matsuo advises people about to marry a foreign national to try to get to know the culture of their partner's home country.
It is also sensible to have an idea of the financial circumstances and wider environment in which they grew up, she says.
"Japanese wives who are going to live in Europe or the United States had better have a job. If they get into a dispute over parental rights, working wives are in a much stronger position than full-time housewives when the court comes to make a decision," she explains.
To love is to understand. As this is hard even for couples of the same nationality, international marriages require that much extra effort.
"Although there are still few lawyers and counseling organizations for international couples who are seeking a divorce, it's vital that both parties understand the law in each other's country. For this reason, it's essential to consult a lawyer at an early stage," Otani advises.
"But where domestic violence is involved, the first thing the abused partner should do is get out and seek refuge in a shelter."

14 October 2005, The Age, SMS used to end relationships: claim Sydney

Breaking up is supposed to be hard to do, but young Australian couples have found an easy solution - send a text message and move on.
Research claims young romantics are increasingly using SMS text messages to manage, and even end, their relationships.
Macquarie University researcher Natalie Robinson studied the texting habits of 100 young people aged 18-35 and found SMS messaging increased when relationships were beginning or going through a rocky period.
Robinson said couples, fearing rejection, wanted to avoid direct contact when their relationships were strained.
"People used text messages to show their negative feelings rather than talking face-to-face," she said. "This might be because text messages were less confrontational and more distant."
The clinical psychologist said she was surprised to find 15 percent of participants had dumped a partner via text messages.
Robinson said one of her friends had been ditched in a text message and found it an unpleasant experience.
"She was very angry because it was so impersonal and because they had been together for a couple of years," she said.
Overall, women were more likely to send text messages telling their partner how they were feeling, while men were more comfortable with practical texts such as "I'll pick up dinner on the way home".
Robinson said people often used texts to keep tabs on partners who were out socialising with friends, creating the potential for friction.
"The receiver of this message may interpret this in a number of ways, such as, 'my partner cares about me and just wants to know what I am doing' or alternatively, 'my partner is suspicious and doesn't trust me and wants to know what I am doing'," she said.
AFP

14 October 2005, Herald Sun (Melbourne), Lawyers or kids? It's easy
By Bettina Arndt

Warning, Mr Howard. There's a red light flashing. Your vital new Family Law initiative looks set to derail.
There's a very real risk the cool $189 million you were proposing to spend on Family Relationship Centres will be money wasted.
The sure sign that something is going astray is the relaxed state of our family lawyers. They don't see the FRCs as any threat to their business. And they should.
These centres were designed to satisfy parliamentarians seeking reform to the way our Family Court system handles divorces involving children.
The parliamentary committee on child custody concluded the current adversarial system was a disaster for children.
But the Government wasn't convinced that their proposal, a tribunal system, would make the difference.
Instead, Howard backed Sydney University law professor Patrick Parkinson's idea of requiring parents to resolve their issues using child-centred mediation at the FRCs.
The whole idea was these centres would be the end point, the place where parents actually sorted out their business, not a mere road bump on the way to lawyers and the Family Court.
That message has simply gone missing from the reams of waffle being produced by the Attorney-General's department about the FRCs.
The lawyers have sniffed the wind and are now seeing the FRC at worst as a minor inconvenience or perhaps even as a source of increased business.
The problem is the AG's department doesn't get it. The latest information paper on the AG website says the FRCs will provide information, education, referral and a free three-hour "joint session" to talk about parenting plans.
Hello! It sounds just like a rehash of many of the education and counselling services on offer at the Family Court before the big squeeze on their funding.
That's why many of the men's groups are up in arms, seeing the new services as adding nothing to approaches that failed divorced families in the past.
There's nothing in this document to suggest the centres are the place where the real work must be done. The place where decisions about children must be made - rather than lawyers' offices and the Family Court.
The original concept was if people insisted on going to court with children's matters, they would simply be referred back to the experts at FRCs.
The centres were supposed to be staffed by people skilled to perform the tortuously difficult child-focused mediation that helps warring parents concentrate on children's needs.
This type of mediation is different from the lawyer-led horse-trading offered by some mediation and dispute resolution services.
It offers something new -- an approach that has been shown to work even with extremely hostile parents who have spent years fighting over their children in the Family Court.
It's fine if the Government can afford to offer only the first three hours of this mediation free. But the message Mr Ruddock needs to be promoting is FRCs are the end of the line and parents must persist in child-focused mediation, even if they have to pay for it because the alternative, lawyers and the Family Court, simply doesn't work for children.
Surprise, surprise, his lawyer-filled department is ducking the issue because they don't want to frighten the horses.
The AG's department is playing to its legal constituency - one very good reason implementation of the FRCs should be handed over to the Department of Family and Community Services, which better understands the sensitive work that is at the heart of this great new plan.
This doesn't mean the Family Court will be totally out of business - lawyers and judges will always be needed to sort out complex property matters.
The AG's department is proposing families with a history of violence should also be referred straight to the court.
That's a joke, considering the hash the court makes of many of these cases. Child-focused mediation is a far better option even in violent families.
There are worrying signs the FRC's agenda has been captured by pro-marriage lobbyists who want the centres to prop up marriage. Recent news stories about the centres were all about support for strained marriages - a laudable goal but with the Government already committed to spending $80 million a year on other marriage education and relationship support services, this shouldn't be the main game for FRCs.
What the centres are supposed to be about is planning separation and post-divorce parenting, with parents able to return whenever new issues arise.
Key players are very nervous that the AG's department has lost the plot on this important new initiative - with some of our most experienced mediation services considering opting out of the tender process and parliamentarians now threatening to renew their push for the tribunal.
It's time for a rethink, Mr Howard - before it is too late.

14 October 2005, The Age, Try before you buy

Marriage is back in vogue, but more people are living together before saying I do, new figures show.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics recorded 110,958 marriages in 2004, up from just over 106,000 in 2003.
The increase raised Australia's marriage rate to 5.5 per 1,000 people from 5.4 in 2003, the first increase since 2002.
The highest marriage rate was in Queensland, at 6.3 per 1,000, while it was lowest in the Northern Territory, where the rate was just 3.9 per 1,000 people.
While people are more keen on marriage, they are not walking down the church aisle.
Just under 60 per cent of all marriages in Australia in 2004 were carried out by a marriage celebrant. Two decades ago, only 40 per cent of marriages were outside of church.
The Northern Territory has the highest proportion of civil marriages (75 per cent), while it is lowest in South Australia (55 per cent).
Of marriages conducted in a church, the most common were those in a Catholic church (32 per cent).
More than three-quarters of couples who married in 2004 lived together before tying the knot. In 1999, 69 per cent of people cohabited before marriage.
In the Northern Territory, 85 per cent of couples lived together before marrying. The lowest cohabitation rate was in NSW, at 70 per cent.
Couples who live together before marrying are more likely to have a civil ceremony (66 per cent) than all couples (59 per cent).
The median age of people getting married continues to rise.
In 2004, the median age of grooms was 32 (up from 27 in 1984), while for women it reached 29 (up from 24 two decades ago).
Around two-thirds of all marriages involved couples who have never previously been married.
In 18 per cent of cases at least one partner had never previously been married, while in another 15 per cent of cases both partners were remarrying.
Men get remarried faster than women.
The median age for remarriage was 3.8 years for men and 4.4 years for women.
People whose previous partner had died had longer to wait for remarriage than those who had divorced. Widowers waited 4.4 years to remarry, and widows 6.7 years.
In 62 per cent of marriages both partners were Australian-born. In another nine per cent the couples were from the same overseas country, while in 29 per cent of cases the partners came from different countries.
- AAP

14 October 2005, The Australian, Call for 'stop divorce' campaign
By Patricia Karvelas

The successful "Quit" smoking campaign should be used as the model for a "Don't quit marriage" crusade, according to the Liberal MP chairing the Howard Government's family relationship centres taskforce.
Liberal backbencher David Fawcett has written a paper, endorsed by Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, on marriage and divorce that urges the Government to adopt a campaign like the Quit program to try to stop couples from separating.
It comes as Mr Ruddock unveiled the location of 50 of the family relationship centres, with seven of the eight members of the backbench committee on Family Relationship Centres securing one centre each in their own electorates.
The centres, part of the Government's $400 million revamp of family law, are designed to be the first port of call for couples whose relationships have broken down. Mr Fawcett is pushing a plan for the Government to take an even bigger role in stopping divorce.
"Nobody denies an individual the right to smoke if they so desire, but even at the risk of being discriminatory, the Government has chosen to respond to the damage that smoking causes," he said.
"The Government acted to bring in a range of measures which affected people financially and limited their freedom of action."
When it came to family relationships, he said, there was a case to justify action by the Government to prevent, "where possible, the broad impacts of marriage breakdown".
Labor's legal spokeswoman Nicola Roxon said it was a conflict of interest to put eight Coalition backbenchers in charge of developing selection and accreditation criteria for the centres when they had been awarded centres in their own electorates.
"Mr Ruddock needs to stop this rort now. He must give an iron-clad guarantee that this backroom committee will have no direct or indirect influence over the tender process in their electorates," she said.
But Mr Ruddock said there was no such conflict of interest.
He also announced new support services for separating families, including four new services under the Contact Orders Program, which helps parents and children to resolve disputes after separation. And seven new children's contact services - to be located in Canberra, Salisbury in Adelaide, Brisbane, Darwin, Perth and Penrith and Sutherland in Sydney - will be established in 2006-07.
Over the next four years, 30 new children's contact services will be established to help separated parents by offering supervised and facilitated changeovers and contact visits in a safe, reliable and neutral place.
Mr Fawcett, who chairs the group, argues that the Government should take a role in keeping couples from divorcing in order to save taxpayers money.
"The incidence of relationship breakdown also affects the individual and the broader community through direct and indirect costs," he says.
"In 2001, the additional direct cost of family separation to the taxpayer was in the order of $350million. This figure does not take into account the indirect costs of coping with increased demand on health services, the legal system, remedial education, contact orders programs etc.
"Given that this support will be cumulative over the life of each child until 18 years of age, on financial grounds alone there is a strong case for government action."
He says the Government must "recognise that our current hands-off approach to marriage is contributing to a very real human and financial cost".
"Make it a priority to invest in a sustained awareness campaign to inform popular perceptions and attitudes, and finally invest in providing relevant and accessible relationship education and support."

13 October 2005, Alan Jones Today Show Editorial, CHILD SUPPORT

One of the issues that imposes great emotional toll on many Australian families is the issue of family break up.
Who wins custody of the children and, when push turns to shove, who pays what.
There has been long term resentment by the non-custodial parent that the system in place disadvantages that person enormously.
Too often we hear that the parent with custody takes the children, often with another partner, to where the non-custodial parent could never afford to go, let alone afford to return the children for a custody break.
Then, of course, payments are currently made by the non-custodial parent as a percentage of taxable income.
It often leaves that parent with nothing to live on and therefore, no capacity to fashion any sort of future.
What is more, too often, the custodial parent teams up with someone else and an income which surely ought to be considered in determining what a non-custodial parent should pay.
And then, of course, the vexed question, who says any of the money is spent on the children anyway.
Well Kay Patterson is the Minister for Family and Community Services and, thankfully, a very caring person.
She has done a hell of a job in bringing new and more sensible proposals to the Cabinet table.
Firstly, instead of payments being calculated as a percentage of taxable income of the parent paying child support, payments will now be based on the combined income of both parents.
And that could take place as soon as July 1 next year.
And, the amount of time each parent spends caring for the children will be taken into consideration.
And the cost of raising children will be assessed in two age groups - up to 12 years and 13-17 years.
It has to be said that a lot of non-custodial parents, primarily fathers, pay not much at all.
According to the Child Support Agency figures, 40% of divorced or separated fathers do their level best to avoid paying anything.
The figures say $5 a week, which is the absolute minimum allowable under current rules.
Against that, many of these parents, the majority of whom are fathers, are at the bottom end of the income scale.
More than half of them on unemployment benefit or social security.
Kay Patterson is trying to overhaul all of this.
And what she is saying is, social security or not, unemployment or not, the minimum you will pay is $20 a week per child.
And the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, is preparing to amend the Family Law Act to include the requirement that separating couples visit a counsellor at one of the new Family Relationship Centres in an attempt to settle differences out of court.
But as Kay Patterson says, the focus should be on what is in the best interests of children.
For the custodial parent to take off to Townsville with the children when the non-custodial parent is battling to put an income together in the suburbs of Sydney, means that the non-custodial parent, whatever else might be said, has not much hope of seeing his or her children.
There has to be a better way of resolving differences than the current system whereby often, based on acrimony, one parent either doesn't see the children or can't afford to see the children.
And the non-custodial parent, man or woman, fights for the rest of his or her life to make a fresh start because of ludicrous demands of the Family Court which is biased in favour of the parent winning custody and seems to care little about the parent who is left behind.
If Kay Patterson can resolve all of that, she will have made an important contribution to the lives of many.

13 October 2005, Location of fifty new Family Relationship Centres

The Attorney-General Philip Ruddock today announced the location of fifty new Family Relationship Centres to be established in mid 2007 and 2008
The remaining centres will be in:

• Sydney, North Ryde, Parramatta, Bankstown, Campbelltown, Blacktown, Brookvale, and Fairfield in the Sydney metropolitan area
• Nowra, Newcastle, Wagga Wagga, Bathurst, Dubbo, Tamworth, Coffs Harbour, Gosford, and Taree in regional NSW
• Broadmeadows, Melbourne City, Chadstone, Greensborough and Berwick in the Melbourne metropolitan area
• Shepparton, Ballarat, Geelong, Morwell/Traralgon, Wodonga and Warrnambool in regional Victoria
• Chermside, Upper Mount Gravatt, Logan and Ipswich in the Brisbane metropolitan area
• Toowoomba, Gold Coast, Maroochydore (Sunshine Coast), Mackay, Cairns, Rockhampton and Bundaberg in regional Queensland
• Noarlunga and Adelaide in the Adelaide metropolitan area
• Port Augusta and Mt Gambier in regional South Australia
• Perth City, Mandurah and Midland in the Perth metropolitan area
• Bunbury, Geraldton and the Pilbara / Kimberley region in regional Western Australia; and,
• Launceston in Tasmania

In addition the Attorney-General announced

• 4 new Contact Orders Program to be located in Adelaide, Canberra, Darwin and Townsville Contact Orders Program will be established in 2006-07
• Seven new children's contact services to be located in Canberra, Salisbury in Adelaide, Brisbane, Darwin, Perth and Penrith and Sutherland in Sydney will be established in 2006-07.
• Family Dispute Resolution Services also will be expanded with six new services to be established in Werribee in Victoria, Maitland and Port Macquarie in New South Wales, Caboolture in Queensland and two in the Pilbara Kimberley region of Western Australia in 2006-07.
• The Request for the Application of Funding will be released on 22 October and we understand there will be 8 weeks in which to respond. We also understand that the dollars will be identified for each centre although this was not publicly announced by the Attorney but indicated in follow-up discussion.

13 / 14 October 2005, 4th National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Male Health Convention

"Shaping Our Future"

• Indigenous men coming together to share knowledge, experience and ideas
• The opportunity to address the unique cultural and social context of their health
• Build on integrating traditional ways and contemporary best practice.

For more information visit the conference website on
www.regocentre.com/nmh2005/

12 October 2005, The Sydney Morning Herald, Fathers will pay less for child support
By Stephanie Peatling

Minimum child support payments are to be raised, but most fathers will find themselves paying less, after the federal cabinet approved the biggest revamp since the inception of the controversial system.
Instead of payments being calculated as a percentage of taxable income of the child support payer they will be based on the combined income of both parents. The changes could take effect as soon as July 1 next year.
The amount of time each parent spends caring for the children will also be taken into consideration and the cost of raising children will be assessed in two age groups - up to 12 years and 13 to 17 years. As a result, about 60 per cent of non-custodial parents - usually fathers - can expect their payments to be reduced.
The Minister for Family and Community Services, Kay Patterson, yesterday briefed the Coalition party room on the changes to the child support scheme, which many MPs say is the subject of most complaints by constituents.
Legislation will be hastily drawn up in an attempt to have the new system in place by the start of the 2006-07 financial year and Treasury has already been asked to cost the changes as part of the budget process. But the Government's hopes of getting the new payment scheme under way as soon as possible will be complicated by a shake-up of the Family Tax Benefit.
As part of the changes, almost all of the benefit will be paid to the custodial parent - usually the mother - to offset any reduction in child support payments.
The minimum payment will be indexed to inflation and will rise from the present $5 a week to $6.
Lowering child support payments in many cases is supposed to reflect the money non-custodial parents spend on their children, such as food and school excursions.
But the president of the Sole Parents Union, Kathleen Swinbourne, said there was no requirement that people would spend the money they saved on child support on their children.
"Children will miss out," she said. "Single-parent families are the ones living in the most poverty and this will make it worse."
The president of the Lone Fathers Association, Barry Williams, supported a change in the way payments were calculated but was concerned that fathers would lose money as a result of higher payments for older children and changes to the Family Tax Benefit.
The decision comes as the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, prepares to take amendments to the Family Law Act to Parliament, including the requirement that separating couples visit a counsellor at one of the new Family Relationship Centres in an attempt to settle their differences out of court.
A spokeswoman for Senator Patterson said yesterday the minister was "working hard with her colleagues on what are significant reforms".
"She remains entirely focused on the best interests of children," the spokeswoman said.
The Opposition's family and community services spokesman, Chris Evans, said any changes to child support should put children first and ensure both parents contributed to their children's lives.

10 - 12 October 2005, 6th National Men's Health Conference

"Advancing men's health practice, knowledge & research"

• International and national key-note speakers will bring a wealth of knowledge to educate and inspire.
• Presentation and seminar sessions will focus on current trends and hot topics in the major themes: practice, knowledge and research.
• A great opportunity to network and socialise with others from Australia and overseas who share a passion for improving men's health.

For more information visit the conference website on
www.regocentre.com/nmh2005/

08 October 2005, The Australian, Parent, child or sibling is the question

There are, according to psychologists, three distinct types of marriage. Knowing which one is yours can prepare you for its problems, says Dr Thomas Stuttaford.
A WELL-REGARDED clinical psychologist once told me that the key to assessing the strength of any marriage was to determine which of three models it belonged to. He described them as parent-child, child-child, or brother-sister.
He taught that in the parent-child model, one of the partners adopted the role of a controlling parent, while the other acquiesced in this. In the second, neither partner had entirely matured, and as a result they played at marriage together, just as children might have done in the sand pit or Victorian nursery. In the third, the couple were essentially great friends -- they shared a background -- but were like a brother and sister who had a close and mutual bond cemented by many years together. Unfortunately, any erotic element in this marriage soon faded.
I thought that this generalisation was too simplistic to be true. And even if it was preferable to the psychobabble that was the usual language of marriage guidance counsellors 35 years ago, it was unlikely to revolutionise the way I reviewed my patients' lives.
However, for a time I mentally dissected and labelled the couples I met and I was surprised how often the psychologist's theory rang true. This was just as well, as the advice the psychologist gave a couple depended into which category he slotted them.
Those placed in a parent-child marriage are probably in the majority. It is a common fallacy that it is always the man who is the dominant partner: in some cultural groups in which matriarchy is common it may be more often the woman who is dominant, with the husband becoming the child who is looked after by a firm but kindly nanny, his wife. The man may give the appearance of being dominant, but once behind the closed doors of his house he may be subservient.
When I started in practice some men used to come home on a Friday evening with their wages intact and hand them over to their wives, who would return a portion to their husbands as pocket money. A dominant woman might not only control the family's finances, but also the running of the household: the father's role was to provide the cash, dig the garden and to discipline the children when necessary. It surprised me at the time to discover how many middle-class families still operated under a modified version of this arrangement.
But in the usual parent-child relationship it is the man who is dominant. Sometimes this was the expected result of his being older. Even when the woman is younger, her appeal is not, as is supposed, because he is taken with her youthful body and vitality.
The subconscious desire that attracted him to a younger or insecure partner was the search for someone who could be guaranteed to look up to him, admire his relative sophistication and be prepared to do his bidding.
Often the dominant man, whatever the age difference, seems to be superior to the woman in sex appeal, experience, earning capacity, intellect and also occasionally social position. These relationships usually last, but are not always happy. There may well be resentment on both sides; the dependent woman initially wallows in the material advantages of having a charming and powerful man who can provide her with material comforts, who will take all the decisions, and cosset her. In time, once the initial lustful stage of the marriage is over, there may be trouble. The wife, although still perhaps as needy as ever, is older, and now resents her physical and emotional dependence on another person. She wants to have her own opinions, to lead her own life even if to outside observers this would inevitably be boring, and to have her own friends, even if less glamorous. In the past, expediency kept her with her husband and children, but now the way in which the family courts divide up the assets of the marriage has given dependent women the independence they crave.
Unfortunately, divorce not only fragments a family, but also disturbs the children. Furthermore, the woman may find that she still retains the characteristics that prompted her to marry her first dominant husband. She may realise that even if she has a healthy bank balance, battling life without a partner is a lonely business. If she looks for another partner he, like the last, is likely to be dominant.
The dominant husband's fate in a parent-child relationship is little better. After a time he begins to resent the dependence of his wife and feels that he bears a massive load on his shoulders. However, he too retains the basic character that led him into this relationship. He has always wanted to be looked up to, to be useful and treasured. He may begrudge the time he has to spend looking after his dependents but he has been conditioned by his upbringing to serve and to lead. In the past, these marriages nearly always trundled along although one or often both partners might have extramarital affairs. Now that divorce is more acceptable, and a sense of duty is less well developed, many of these controlling bossy husbands leave for another woman. Rather, more of them are left by their first wives.
My briefing with the psychologist arose from asking him to see an eminent, wealthy couple. I was amazed when the psychologist said that the trouble was that both were disturbingly immature. They fitted into his child-child category -- and predicted that this couple would stay together because there was enough money to pay for the cost of their games, even if they were in bedrooms rather than sandpits. Child-child marriages usually last once the lustful stage leads on to something more permanent.
The brother-sister marriage is a product of people's tendency to be attracted to others like themselves. People are drawn to potential partners who have had the same background, share the same interests, have comparable intellects and may even look alike. The lustful stage of marriage in a brother-sister partnership is shorter than in most unions, but the second, nesting, phase of marriage is more likely to be reached, and is stronger than in many other relationships. The friendship becomes very deep but the sex life after a few years is often virtually non-existent. These marriages usually survive provided that the almost inevitable extramarital relationships don't split it asunder.
The Times

05 / 06 October 2005, Father-Inclusive Practice Forum

A National Forum for Male and Female Practitioners, Educators, Trainers, Managers and Policymakers in Early Intervention and Family-Related Services.
Nursing Theatre Richardson Wing, The University of Newcastle, Family Action Centre, The University of Newcastle with support from Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services.
When you look at most early intervention services across Australia, three features stand out: they are attempting to do an enormous job with modest resources; front-line workers are usually women; and mothers access the services. Talking to service providers reveals another important fact: most services would like to involve fathers. Lack of resources is one obvious reason why dads are not more involved but there is also uncertainty among services as to how to involve fathers. Policy-makers and program designers are equally uncertain since there is a lack of research demonstrating that changing a service to include fathers alongside mothers will be worth the investment.
Nevertheless, the need to bring fathers into the work of family-related services is recognised at every level. Practitioners across Australia have initiated programs and activities to remove the subtle, and not so subtle, barriers to fathers' participation. State governments have begun to include fathers as target groups in their planning of early intervention services. Non-government organisations, often with a proud history of supporting mothers, have begun the shift to a more inclusive approach to families. The Commonwealth has also supported fathers' involvement by funding Men and Relationships programs, research on fathers and the Father-Inclusive Practice Forum. The Steering Group for this Forum, listed below, reflect the wide range of interest that exists in bringing fathers on board.

The Father-Inclusive Practice Forum has two ambitious aims:

• to increase understanding and awareness of the competencies and effective strategies for father engagement
• to expand the capacities of individual staff and organisations to include fathers in every aspect of family support for the benefit of children and families

04 October 2005, Christmas contact filing deadline

The Family Court has issued a Practice Direction setting the filing deadline for contact/residence applications relating to the summer school holiday period.
All applications for contact or residence during the December 2005/ January 2006 school holiday period must be filed at the court by 4pm on Friday 11 November 2005. Applications filed before that date will be listed for hearing on the next available date, which may be in 2006.
Applications filed after 11 November to abridge times and list matters on short notice can be made and the usual criteria for an urgent hearing will apply.
Practice Direction No 1 of 2005, made by Chief Justice Diana Bryant on 30 September 2005 will be published in a forthcoming issue of CCH's Australian Family Law Handbook.
The Handbook contains the state and territory school holiday dates for 2005/ 2006.

Dads In Distress is funded by the Australian Federal Government.