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

27 December 2005, The Age, ANOTHER LOOK AT SHARED PARENTING - THE FAMILY COURT AND EQUAL TIME
By Andrew Hale and Barry Apelbaum

Since the introduction of the Family Law Act in 1975, a generation of children have grown up living with mums while visiting their dads on weekends. According to the Australian Institute of Family Studies, around 88% of children live with their mother after separation. Fathers have been shut out of a parenthood involving routine activities with their children and transformed into 'Disneyland Dads'.
The law regarding separating parents will alter significantly if the Federal Government enacts the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005 introduced last week. The Bill compels the Court to consider making an order that the child spends equal time with both parents. If the Court decides against equal time, the Bill then compels the Court to consider substantial time. Both are subject to a history of child abuse, family violence and whether the making of such an order is practicable.
Critically, the Bill does not legislate a 'presumption of shared parenting' or a 'starting-point of shared parenting'. It simply mandates the Court to consider such an order, and it requires lawyers, mediators and parents to do likewise.
The new Bill comes on the back of a need for more shared parenting. For fathers, the outlook after separation is grim. Dads In Distress points out that young separated Australian men are ten times more likely to die by suicide than through a car accident. The Family Law Reform Association NSW reiterated the claim by Father's Groups that at least half of the suicides of separated fathers are related to their harsh treatment by the family law and child support schemes.
Opposition to shared parenting is stronger among mothers than fathers, but it seems that opposition from mothers focuses on younger children below six years of age, and lessens as the child grows older. On the other hand, several studies suggest that young Australians of both genders are expressing a strong desire to take part in child raising and family life when they become parents.
Increased shared parenting may have an effect on divorce rates. In Australia, about 80% of separations are initiated by women, who presently expect to enjoy the residence of children. One recent study in the US revealed that US States with high levels of joint custody awards showed a significant decline in divorce, compared to the other States. The reason for this effect may be related to economic factors, such as reduced child support payments, and mothers' reluctance to spend substantial periods without the company of their children.
By far the strongest reason to encourage more shared parenting is because of the detriment caused to children by the absence of their fathers. Sadly, children report the loss of daily contact with one of their parents as the worst part of their parents' separation. Psychologically, children living with just one parent are significantly more likely to have emotional or behavioural problems, and account for more teenagers requiring psychiatric hospitalis-ation. Children without their fathers tend to have lower self-esteem, and are more likely to drop out of school, suffer depression, feel different from other children at school, be involved in accidents, and to attempt and commit suicide. When children have 'no father', they are more likely to develop criminal, delinquent, and violent behaviour. Daughters with absent fathers are more likely to have difficulties with other men in their lives, to fall pregnant out of wedlock, and - ironically - to divorce. Sons are described as less masculine, and more dependent.
For many parents, it is accepted that shared parenting is not a practicable option. Many work late hours and are simply not willing to share the role of primary parent. For others, shared parenting is increasingly seen as a realistic and desirable option. Children are conscious of it as an option and they are also encouraging a change in culture.
The shared arrangement works better if certain factors are present, but their absence ought not rule against it. One such factor is communication and cooperation. This is the ability of both parents to communicate and cooperate in the joint care of their child. It is suggested that this factor ought not be fatal when considering shared parenting. If mum and dad can maintain a 'business-like' working relationship as parents, that is sufficient.
Even moderate amounts of conflict ought not necessarily impede a shared parenting arrangement, provided that the parents insulate the children from any conflict. Particularly where this conflict is predominantly arising out of litigation, consideration should be had to the possibility that conflict will subside once the legal fighting ends and the parties get down to parenting.
To insist on an absence of conflict, may encourage it. If a father wants shared parenting, and the mother does not and believes the court's fallback order will be prime residence to her, she may promote conflict and be uncooperative, to provide evidence for the court to reject shared parenting.
A further factor is compatible parenting. This involves both parents sharing similar attitudes to the child's day-to-day upbringing, such as their attitudes towards discipline, homework, health, diet and sleeping patterns. Again, it is suggested that incompatible parenting is not fatal to a shared parenting arrangement. Differences in parenting style may serve to enrich a child's upbringing. One parent may stress the importance of education and the other of recreation; one may encourage more sleep and the other less sleep; one may encourage more nutritional food and the other a more relaxed diet. Provided the child is in the care of a loving parent, one parent ought not be disqualified from spending substantial time with the child simply because of a different parenting style to the other.
Essential factors are the proximityof the parents' two households, their ability to care for the child, the child's wishes and, as mentioned, the risk of any violence or abuse to the child or the mother. Ultimately it is hoped that the Shared Parenting Bill, if passed, will mark a significant cultural change in the way that family law treats fathers. When children wish it, and their separated parents are emotionally and physically able to provide for them, and geographically proximate, shared equal time between households is practical and desirable. The arrangement is obviously fair, and encourages co-operation for the benefit of the children. It would be a proud achievement if more children could continue to have a loving relationship with both their father and mother.

Notes about the authors:
Andrew Hale is a family law solicitor and an Accredited Specialist in Family Law, having been practicing in the area for 25 years.
Barry Apelbaum is a final year law student at Monash University who is also studying a Bachelor of Science (Psychology). Barry's studies have specialized in Family and Criminal law.

22 December 2005, Chicago Tribune (USA), Magazine tackles melancholy and practicalities of divorce
By Jeffrey Fleishman, Tribune Newspapers, Los Angeles Times

Berlin - You're a divorced, middle-aged German guy thumbing through the new War of the Roses magazine when you discover on page 8 how much the dating scene has changed since you and your disco threads were last on the prowl: The Billy Boy condom company wants to rent you a "flirt dog."
It's not a designer prophylactic. It's a real dog. German women love dogs, which, by extension, means they might consider going out with the guy on the other end of the leash. The dog is the "ultimate secret recipe for the successful flirt," states the magazine, which also has advice on how to cook salmon in the dishwasher.
War of the Roses, the only magazine of its kind in Germany, and possibly Europe, is written for the lost, hurt, mending, defiant, neurotic souls of the divorced. It is a mix of intriguing snippets and longer, probing stories on custody battles, psychological syndromes, divorce law, investment tips and the perils of Internet dating.
"People are telling us, Why didn't this magazine exist when my divorce was going on?" said Mike Neumann, who edits the magazine with colleague Marion von Gratkowski. War of the Roses made its debut in October and was named after the 1989 Hollywood black comedy in which Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas played a couple in the midst of a brawling divorce.

Glitz and grit
RosenKrieg, as it is known in German, prints 35,000 copies of each bimonthly edition, with a core readership of men and women between 25 and 50. Its design is a mix of muted glitz and matter-of-factness, like pasting a provocative cover on a mathematics quarterly. A muscular naked man enfolded in thought fronts the December issue.
The headlines and profiles elucidate the whimsical vagaries of love and the sting of solitary reality:
"No one and nothing will ever take my freedom again," states a dour-looking guy named Georg, pictured on page 36 wearing a leather jacket and leaning against a silver-studded Harley. Georg's "nightmare" marriage cost him 250,000 euros, or about $300,000, and three stays in a psychiatric hospital. He was saved, he explains, by a vision of himself riding through a summer field, smelling flowers and his own sweat.
"There are about 220,000 divorces in Germany a year, and that's up from about 150,000 from a decade ago," Neumann said. "It's a problem. Everything is more separated. People are more egoistic. They don't know what to do with their partners and their kids. And if you're the child of a divorce, you carry the `divorce disease' with you."
The magazine mirrors a divorce rate that is among the highest in Europe. Like much of the continent, this nation of 82 million is increasingly secular and economically uncertain. The religious and social precepts that once held marriages together are loosening.
The continent also is facing a dramatic demographic shift: the lowest fertility rates in the world and an aging population. These factors are compounded by the prevalence of divorce, which psychologists and social workers say is another burden on Germany's welfare system.
War of the Roses would fit nicely on coffee tables of the country's top politicians. Former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has had four wives. Joschka Fischer, who was his foreign minister, is married to spouse No. 5. There's a joke in Germany that Schroeder and Fischer never traveled together because if they both died, the government would have been hit with exorbitant widow pension payments.

56 percent divorce rate
The magazine investigated why 56 percent of German marriages fail. That compares with 43.7 percent in the European Union overall and nearly 50 percent in the U.S. The answers were hardly surprising: affairs, unemployment, financial problems, higher numbers of working women. And in Germany, Neumann said, "no-fault divorces became legal in 1977, so it's become much easier. Before, somebody had to lie. Someone had to be guilty whether they were actually guilty or not."
These days, single mothers, depressed fathers, disillusioned children and others battered by divorce are "on TV every day," said Neumann, a divorced father of three who believes that most couples don't thoroughly contemplate the sanctity and weight of a lifelong commitment.

22 December 2005, Forbes.com, Emotional Pain of Divorce Lingers Long After Split

HealthDay News - Breaking up may be hard to do, but getting over it is even harder for many people, new research shows.
A divorce can alter a person's sense of happiness over the long-term, beginning in the period leading up to the split and stretching well beyond that, the German study claims.
"Divorce does seem to cause a permanent decline in levels of happiness," said study author Richard E. Lucas, an assistant professor in the department of psychology at Michigan State University in Lansing, and a research affiliate with the German Institute of Economic Research in Berlin. "People are less happy following a divorce than they were at the beginning of their marriage, or before they even got married."
To explore the emotional resonance of divorce, Lucas analyzed 18 years of data collected during once-yearly interviews involving more than 30,000 German men and women who were asked to rate their life satisfaction on a scale of one to 10.
Lucas honed in on 817 individuals, all of whom had already been married before the study launch in 1984. All the men and women remained married for at least one year into the interview process before ultimately divorcing.
He also focused on a separate pool of 2,388 men and women who were single when first interviewed, but got married at some point during the study period.
When possible, Lucas assessed the changes in annual satisfaction responses by comparing three time frames: the period of marriage occurring at least three years before a divorce - defined as the gold standard of happiness; the "reaction period," the two years before the divorce as well as the year of the divorce itself; and the "adaptation period," beginning at least two years after the divorce.
In the December issue of Psychological Science, Lucas reports that - as might be expected - the average participant had a steep drop in his or her sense of happiness during the reaction period surrounding divorce. The drop was twice as evident in men compared to women.
Lucas also found that during the post-split phase, divorcees were still significantly less happy than they had been during the prime of their marriage.
A sense of happiness returned about five years after the divorce - but never rose back to pre-divorce levels, he said.
Lucas next tried to determine whether the divorce itself caused the unhappiness or whether people who get divorced are somehow predisposed to become unhappy during the break-up process.
What he found was a complex emotional landscape, in which people who eventually get divorced appeared to have been less happy during their happiest years than those who got married and stayed married.
He also noted that those who stayed married were, on average, happier before getting married than those who ended up in divorce court.
And those who got divorced appeared to have had below-average happiness levels before their marriage.
Age, however, seems to trump marital status, with older people reporting less satisfaction overall than younger people, regardless of whether they ultimately divorce.
Lucas concluded that while the experience of divorce does trigger a sustained happiness decline in many people, the drop can sometimes be due as much to pre-existing happiness differences among individuals as it is to the act of separation itself.
In either case, Lucas emphasized that divorce has a complicated emotional impact. And he encouraged friends, family and health-care professionals to assess the emotional health of those going through divorce.
"This is about the average person, but it turns out there's quite a bit of variability," said Lucas. "Some people are actually happier after divorce than they were before. And so therapists, clinicians and psychological researchers need to explore the factors that allow some people to adapt to life events, whereas others do not."
Dr. David Yamins, a psychiatrist at Maimonides Medical Center in New York City, viewed the findings with a jaundiced eye.
"It really depends on how you define satisfaction, but I find it hard to believe that a divorce confers a special disadvantage above and beyond any other significant life event," he said. "In my experience, people who have gone through a divorce and continue on in life don't seem to be any worse off."
"But I do think people's approach to relationships will stay the same from partner to partner," he added. "So within the sphere of relationships, there may not be any greater happiness after a divorce. We're bound to repeat history."
Another divorce study conducted in Canada and published in the current issue of the Journal of Marriage and Family found that the demise of a marriage is most harmful to a child's mental health before a parental split, rather than after.
By analyzing four years of data on almost 17,000 children younger than 11, researchers at the University of Alberta found that before the divorce, children whose parents ultimately break up are more depressed, anxious and anti-social than kids from stable marriages.
The researchers concluded that the common notion that parents should stay together for the sake of their kids is a fallacy that can do more harm to children than good.

19 December 2005, Bayside Bulletin (Redland Bay, QLD), Christmas can be emotionally tough
By Debbie White

Christmas is a wonderful time of year for families, but with 43 per cent of marriages ending in divorce and 75 per cent of divorced mothers and 80 per cent of divorced fathers re-partnering, it can be an emotional rollercoaster for some.
Special events like Christmas bring marriage breakdown into sharp focus, said Professor Matt Sanders, founder of the Triple P Positive Parenting Program.
"As adults we need to remember that few children want their parents to divorce and many resent their parents re-partnering and re-marrying," he said.
Professor Sanders offered the following tips for coping with Christmas in separated or divorced families:

• Make a special effort to foster the spirit of Christmas and the excitement that goes with it;
• Minimise the potential for increased stress due to contact with extended family;
• Don't allow unresolved tensions and frictions to come to the fore;
• Children can sense parents' anxieties, so sort out any concerns on how to handle Christmas Day well before the event;
• Be mindful of your child's temperament. Some children have better general coping skills than others;
• If the relationship has only recently broken down, children may be grieving about the loss of family Christmas traditions and holidays in general. Acknowledge and face this.

Develop a parenting plan and agree on how decisions are made about education, healthcare, religion, discipline, holidays and contact with extended family. Agree on how your child will spend time with each parent and how disputes will be resolved if parents can't agree.
Be consistent and minimise changes. Children like routine and predictability, so establish daily routines relating to sleeping, eating, playing, TV, homework, computers and contact with friends.
Communicate effectively with your ex-spouse and avoid verbal abuse in front of children. When children hear parents argue and fight they feel threatened and insecure about what will happen to them.
Don't criticise your ex-spouse in front of your children. Watch what you say to friends on the phone if your child can hear.
Encourage your child to express their feelings and listen to them. Don't interrogate or tell your child they should feel upset or angry. Help them deal with problems themselves rather than simply taking over.

14 December 2005, Illawarra Mercury, Amendment an exercise in word play

Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock has tabled a new Family Law amendment bill in Parliament. It is being touted as helping to change the culture of family law. In fact, there will be no change. It is simply an exercise in word- play.
The words "consideration of equal time" are now proposed to be added to the Family Law Act. A Family Court judge will at least have to consider if both parents can have equal contact with their kids after separation. The Labor Government made similar changes to the Family Law Act in 1995. The Family Court then subsequently chose to interpret the legislation in such a way as to make these changes ineffective. Less than two (2) per cent of court orders continued to be made for equal time, shared parenting.
Using words like "equal time" is certainly a good start. However when linked to "consideration", this change effectively means nothing has changed. The desired outcome of any change to family law amendments is the introduction of a rebuttable presumption of equal time, shared parenting. Our politicians have not been game enough to include this outcome in the current round of changes.
"Reasonable" has been added to the often misused phrase "apprehension of family violence". This is also word play. The family violence issue has long been an inappropriate tool to gain a financial advantage in the Family Court. Unless family violence is proven this misuse will continue.
Until these fundamental changes are made to our legislation, nothing changes.

13 December 2005, ABC Mid North Coast NSW, Me, my kids and my Ex
Reporter: Kim Honan, Presenter: Mike Corkill

Me, my kids and my Ex is not a follow up to the movie Me, Myself, I starring Rachel Griffiths but the fourth title in a series of booklets produced by the Child Support Agency aimed at helping fractured families.
Over 140,000 children in rural and regional NSW are part of a separated relationship, a quarter of this figure from the mid north coast and north coast region, with a total of 1.4 million children across Australia are dependant on child support payments.
The new booklet hopes to take away some of the anguish experienced by separated parents and their children at this time of year. The key message of the booklet is "no longer partners but parents forever".
The General Manager of the Child Support Agency Matt Miller says that one of the key things to helping kids get through the traumas and emotions inevitably attached to a separation is if parents can develop a positive working relationship.
"It really minimises the adverse impact on the children and at the end of the day that's really what parents need to be focusing on post-separation," he said.
"It's okay to get yourself sorted out as well but you never want to get into that spiral of anger at your ex partner at the expense of the kids and that's one of the key things we're looking to try and attack here through this support book."
Me, my kids and my Ex is full of tips and hints and incorporates real life quotations from separated parents serving as a valuable tool to any parent of or involved in a separated partnership.
Some of the topics in the book includes: hot spots with your ex, how fighting hurts the kids, tips on dealing with grief, planning for change, parenting time schedule options, dealing with set backs, and the painful games parents play.
Mr Miller says that at the end of the day it does not matter who was right or who was wrong because the partnership is no longer effective.
"Really what we're saying is get yourself through that part of the cycle so that you can move on a separated parent and enjoy the rest of your life," he said.
"It's about trying to have effective communication and I'm not trying to trivialise it. I appreciate that for many people it's going to be difficult particularly if you had domestic violence situations or etcetera but they're not the mainstream ones."
He says it is about getting to a stage where you can communicate in a workable way.
"Clearly the love in the relationship has gone but it's about seeing the importance in the interest of your kids, having that workable relationship and planning and not going around pressing your partner's buttons by not dining out on what's ancient history in many respects on some of the problems in the relationship," Mr Miller said.
Mr Miller says it is absolutely fundamental for children to see parents co-operating with each other and that what they have tried to do in the guide is to say to people "don't use your kids as the vehicle through which to express your anger to your ex partner."
"Things like one-upmanship at this time of year in terms of buying expensive presents, maybe the other partner can't afford it, but even at other times of the year when you're trying subtlety to deliver messages through the children to your ex are very inappropriate strategies," he said.
"Kids really grieve and get quite scared when they see their parents having serious and aggressive arguments in front of them."
Mr Miller believes that the fundamental underpinning of shared parenting is absolutely the way to go forward.
"Some people interpret that as 50 percent contact, that's clearly not the intent. But the notion that we're jointly and severally responsible for the way our kids are brought up is fundamental to this booklet and to the whole way the Government is responding to child support and family law," he said.
Order Me, my kids and my Ex (printed version), or any book from the Me and My series today.
https://www.csaonline.gov.au/publications/order.aspx
Download a copy of Me, my kids and my Ex (electronic version, pdf 1.1MB)
http://www.csa.gov.au/publications/1229.pdf
If you would prefer to order Me, my Kids and my Ex via the phone; please call 1800 040 972.

12 December 2005, The Australian, Support agency to 'be more sensitive'
Patricia Karvelas

THE much-maligned Child Support Agency admits it has been "insensitive" in dealing with feuding couples but promises a radical change in its treatment of divorced parents next year.
CSA general manager Matt Miller said the agency planned to issue the first "parenting planning kit", giving divorced couples a framework for sharing children, as part of efforts to change the culture of the body and the way it deals with 1.3million parents.
Mr Miller told The Australian that 2006 would be a "watershed year" for the agency, which administers child support payments to parents, with staff to be retrained to make sure they avoid upsetting clients.
"From the CSA perspective, we realise we need to take it to a new level, particularly being more caring with our parent client group," he said.
A lot of parents had difficult cases that the agency had failed to handle in a "caring and sensitive way", he said.
"They're very complex. It takes time to talk through those things, so we'll do more face-to-face on those complex cases," Mr Miller said.
Politicians have been bombarded with complaints about the child support system and the CSA, with claims that staff discriminate against non-custodial parents, most often fathers.
Craig Selleck, 37, who has been divorced for six years and pays child support for his three children, said CSA staff were "completely inflexible".
"They are very insensitive to the needs of the non-custodial parent," he said.
"The girls on the phone don't even talk to me anymore, they don't negotiate. You could be on your death bed and they are totally inflexible and won't hear you out."
Barry Williams, president of the Lone Fathers Association of Australia, said the agency had built a reputation for mistreating people.
"Mr Miller has given us a guarantee that they are going to make sure their staff have a better attitude," he said.
Mr Miller said the agency's new book, Me, My Kids and My Ex, would help divorced parents form a workable relationship for the benefit of their children.
He said he hoped the book would stop parents using the children as pawns to get back at each other.
"We want them to have a look at that plan and use it as a checklist for dealing with birthdays and other significant times for the former family unit.
"It is a checklist on your own behaviour to make sure you are having the most effective communication with the ex."
Mr Miller said he wanted people to have a positive experience with the agency.
"Sometimes your frontline people can take a less than caring attitude," he said.
"That's where a lot of our energies are going to go next year, so in 12 months I would hope we've clearly been delivering a lot more caring and customer-centred service."
The federal Government has endorsed proposals from a child custody taskforce, headed by Sydney law professor Patrick Parkinson, which include, for the first time, the costs of raising children being determined by the parents' combined income.
Under the plan, the cost would be split between the parents according to their capacity to pay, and the time they spend with the children.

11 December 2005, Sunday News (NZ), The Santa Clause takes the fun out of Christmas
By JONICA BRAY

Not even Santa can get away from the claws of political correctness. The big bearded man in the red suit - loved by children around the world - has been branded a dirty old man.
BAD TIDINGS: Political correctness is impacting on volunteer Santa's. John Smale, a volunteer Santa for seven years, says the Christmas ho, ho, ho is turing into no, no, go.
John said the abuse was getting worse and he may hang up his red suit for good.
"Every year I get snide remarks. Women tell me I'm disgusting for having a child sit on my knee," John, a Rotorua pensioner, told Sunday News.
"They say people spend all year telling their kids not to accept lollies from strangers and we shouldn't encourage it.
"But Santa is not a stranger. I am 78 years old, so I have got a pretty thick skin but I get fed up. It's thoughtlessness."
Every Christmas big-hearted John sits for hours in a hot, sweaty suit as children pull his beard and bounce on his knee.
"When a child comes running up and throws their arms around my neck shouting `Thank you, Santa', I know it's worth it," John said.
"I always keep my hands on display and have a female helper at all times. I feel much better with her there."
Shopping complexes in Australia have reported a shortage of Santas this year because of new rules designed to protect workers from possible legal action. All Australian Santas must be vetted by police and carry a card. Johnsays New Zealand is heading in the same direction.
"There's a shortage of volunteers and if it keeps going the way it is, I won't bother any more," he said.
The attacks on Santa came after airlines revealed they would not allow men to sit beside children travelling alone.
"It's political correctness gone mad," said John. "We've got so far away from being correct it's gobbledegook."

10 December 2005, Newcastle Herald, Divided they Fall

There are no winners in the Family Court but many men feel the odds have been overwhelmingly stacked against them. The Federal Government is slowly coming round to their way of thinking, writes Jim Keller.
THEY wouldn't stand out in a crowd, these blokes. Wearing singlets, stubbies and sandals, they were not ashamed of their various colourful tatts, their day-old face stubble. They could be sitting in a pub, watching the footy and sipping on a cold one. But they weren't.
Instead, they were sitting in a circle on a hot summer night in a classroom surrounded by toy prams, blackboards, hand towels, bean bags. They were like brothers in arms.
The occasion was the weekly meeting of the Newcastle chapter of Dads in Distress, sharing stories and healing wounds over divorces that had laid them low.
Like vets of a war long finished, they are bitter about the forces that sent them into battle but comrades forever with those who fought beside them.

There are more than 400,000 nonresident (without custody) fathers in Australia, which means more than 1 million children live in homes without their natural father.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports there were 52,747 legal divorces in 2004, with children involved in 49.8 per cent of them.
There may be some wins for men in the Government's proposed amendments to the Family Law Act of 1975, introduced in Parliament on Thursday.
The amendments will require courts to consider equal time (residence) with both parents for a child if it's in the child's best interests, and where parents already share parental responsibility for important decisions.
The legislation will amend the existing definition of family violence to make clear that a fear or apprehension of violence must be "reasonable," which addresses concerns that false claims of violence can be a way of denying access to children.
The amendments also give courts a wider range of powers to deal with parents who breach contact orders.
The Government's momentous changes include changing the formula for child support payments, which will include more consideration of the income of both spouses, and creation of "family relationship centres" as a first port of call for parents who separate. But it's a long road to peace.
The men's stories of dealing with Family Court, the Child Support Agency and former partners are raw:
There are no winners in divorce court, but fathers are convinced they fare the worst. A typical scenario would see a man pay an absolute minimum of $10,000 for a solicitor to represent their interests in obtaining a share of residency ("custody" in old law terms) and suffer a lengthy waiting period for a final decree if they are in dispute with their former spouse over the terms.
The mother often qualifies for Legal Aid to represent her interests (often capped at $10,000), where the father must find his own legal counsel, at the going rate of ,$260/hour in Newcastle. The process can be a bloodbath for some men. They may see their partner file for an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) to get the first leg up in the battle.
Then, they may suffer the indignity of being accused of child abuse - which will see their visitation rights suspended by the family court. Or they may lose contact with their kids if the mother moves to a distant location which they cannot readily visit.
In short, fathers believe the odds have been stacked against them when it comes to family law. "Fathers don't win custody cases, mothers lose them," says Carl Boyd, a prominent family law solicitor in Newcastle.
"Ninety-four per cent of all contested applications are settled by consent. Dads figure they can't win them."
The situation is not good in Newcastle, which has an average waiting period of 25 months from the date of filing an application for residence of children to the final hearing, says Boyd. "Newcastle is not treated well," he says, noting it has only one justice in the federally-operated Family Court.
"If no more cases were filed here, there would be 17 months of cases to be heard." "Because of the lengthy delay, people throw in the towel. Careers go ahead, life goes on," Boyd says.
Life does not go on for all disenfranchised fathers: the Dads in Distress group claims divorce is a leading cause of male suicide, and their advocates talk of the skyrocketing rate of men's suicide since no-fault divorce was introduced in 1975.
Lifeline Newcastle director Pam Tierney noted that of the 1171 calls the crisis line fielded in July, 85 of them concerned relationship breakdown (with 2825 minutes spent on counselling those callers). Another 42 calls related to marriage or partners, 48 dealt with loneliness, 21 domestic violence, 18 divorce, 5 blended families, 64 on accommodation and 20 on suicide.
They were not classed by gender, but they give an indication of the size of the issue in the community.
During the wait for a final Family Court order, the court almost always sticks with the "status quo" which usually means the mother retains custody of the children, giving the father access on alternate weekend and half of the school holidays.
Fathers face pressure from employers who don't want them missing work, the court which wants flnancial reports, psychological reports, appearances on consent orders, the Child Support Agency which will garnish wages on a strict formula for payment.
"I think it must be absolutely bewildering, and there must be a lot of pain out there," says Dr Tony Nicholas, a clinical psychologist with 20 years of experience in Newcastle. "Like all things in life, when things are resolved amicably with children and property, then things are fine. But where this goes awry, where things become acrid, caustic, it's absolutely horrible."
Associate Professor John Jenkins from the University of Newcastle's Centre of Full Employment and Equity is doing research of non-resident fathers and the leisure time they spend with their children. He's been interviewing fathers in the region.
"A lot of dads don't think there is a big enough support, network," he says. "Their mate at the pub listens to it once, then he's ready to move on to something else. The dad ends up moving in to his parent's home, or the shed out the back."
Work commitments in a changing commercial work don't always do much of a favour for wage-earning fathers.
Professor Jenkins notes that 30 per cent of non-resident dads only see their children during daytime hours, often a result of working nights as required by certain professionals or working nights to earn extra pay loading to meet costs. It means some dads never tuck their kids into bed or share an evening meal where they talk about what they did that day.
"There should be an opportunity for dads to arrange more flexible work so he can have contact. The system is not flexible enough," Jenkins notes.
"It is severely hampered by the lack of co-operation between parents. Courts enforce orders that are longstanding and difficult to change."
Mental health professionals say the stereo", ical male is hit hard by divorce, often not seeing it coming.
"When men split up from relationships, they are vulnerable," says Greg Millan, a men's health consultant in Newcastle. "Often guys will say they are surprised when it splits up. They will tell they really didn't know what was happening. Maybe this isn't about women being tricky, but about men not being up with it.
"They weren't aware their partner wasn't happy. Generally it's because there has been a breakdown in communication and understanding between two people."
Experts agree that men are caught in a timewarp: they are expected to be major wage earners for the family, and live up to modern day parenting expectations by taking on increased family responsibilities "They are in the middle of a changing culture," says David Nagle, principal psychologist at Calm Solutions in Newcastle. "They have to be nurturing, they have to be the provider. They can be in a no-win situation."
Communication in marriage is the crux of the problem, Nagle and others agree. "Men notoriously have poor communication skills. Through appropriate support they can be taught those skills, so they don't end up in those traps and fall into the same problem in the future." The Government's new family law package includes funding for 'Tamily relationship centres" where the Government proposes to offer early counselling intervention for couples on the verge of separation and divorce.
The intention is good, but the execution is vital. Lack of resources to back up that assistance over the longer-term could be detrimental to families. 'We need to do a lot more for guys," says Millan, a social worker for 25 years. 'We need to give men a good set of skills to deal with change."
Dads in Distress was founded in Coffs Harbour by Tony Miller, a father suffering through a difficult divorce. It has grown to 25 support groups across the nation, including one in Newcastle. The group meets weekly and new members are welcome. They sit in a circle, passing a rock around to each attendee when it is his turn to talk.
The rules are no discrimination, no vilification in what you say, and absolutely no interruptions. They provide empathy, acceptance and genuineness to one another, a place where each person will not be judged by their situation. It's a space men in this situation may not find anywhere else. Their words reflect their situations ...
Friday this week it's been three years since she walked out with the four kids. Tomorrow we have a mediation. We began legal proceedings in April, when a letter appeared in me letterbox. She won't talk to me...
My wife walked out in August. I've got a boy, 7, and a girl, 9. I'm in the family home. I've got 50 per cent custody. I'll be in court in January. I'll be pushing the status quo... I'm thinking she's thinking money before the kids...
It's a seven-year story. I'm close to closing the case. I've got to pay the CSA a bit more to get more custody. I hurt as much as the guys who don't get as much time. I have to pay to get as much ... You can have the better wage, the better training, but it doesn't count.. I feel like I'm going around in circles. I've got a court hearing on the 19th. Every time you think something is going to happen, she changes her mind...
I took the kids to the union picnic on Monday. One of the kids brought a friend, who's mother came along. When my daughter went home it was the first thing she said when she got in the door. The ex got upset. There's a bit of justice in that...
The group is on the verge of establishing a storefront in Waratah, and plans are in the works for establishing a Mums in Distress group in Newcastle and another Dads in Distress chapter at the Cessnock jail.

09 December 2005, Sydney Morning Herald, Why both parents count
By Paola Totaro

In a divorce settlement, the children's needs must come first, writes Paola Totaro.
Alistair Nicholson, a former chief justice of the Family Court, hit the airwaves yesterday talking down the Federal Government's changes to the Family Law Act. A political "pandering to militant fathers' groups" he said, a "mathematical division" of time which is not in the interests of the child.
Divorce is traumatic and a profound disappointment and sadness for everyone involved. But its impact does not have to be the bitter, warlike legacy that custodial battles so often bring. In any dispute, it makes sense to begin mediating plans for a resolution from the middle position. When it comes to custody, the middle position - the starting point - is half the time with mum and half the time with dad: 50-50.
What could be more simple? Or more fair?
We've brought our children up for more than eight years now under shared custody arrangements. When it first went to court, it was the lawyers - who had worked in the Family Court for years and years - who urged us to drop the plan.
"Men don't win," they said. "Don't get your hopes up," they warned. "Judges don't often come down in favour of fathers," was the lugubrious refrain. I would never have believed it if I had not lived it. But our judges endorsed it. And our children won. They have two homes, two sets of parents, several grandparents - all who love them. Asked the question, they're unanimous: "Half and half, we love them both."
Every couple is different, every situation coloured by its own nuances and circumstances. But that is why, in the end, a civilised family law framework must be flexible and allow for adjustments, one way or another. OK, so mum and dad do not love each other any more. But in many cases not only will they continue to love their children but will want to play significant, equal roles in their lives.
Clearly, for some parents a 50-50 arrangement may be more difficult, geographically or logistically. Work, where you live - many factors impact on these vexed decisions. But if you start from a 50-50 situation you can work towards more time with mum - or with dad - depending on what works best for all of you, with the children in first place.
Violence, neglect, drug abuse - all the issues that should, in the best of worlds, preclude parenthood - must and will continue to shape access arrangements. But to start from the premise that mum is always the best parent is simply insulting to all the men who perform the role with passion - and all the women partnered with men who take being a father seriously. It is also intellectually primitive, sexist and profoundly unfair.
Australia is unfortunately a nation of divorcees: one in three marriages end, and more and more households consist of blended families. The nuclear family is no longer overwhelmingly the dominant model, and while families now take many shapes and forms, research worldwide not only confirms the significance of two parental figures but also the negative neurological impact of stress and external stressors on young, developing brains.
As an educated, relatively affluent and civilised society, it is incumbent on us to absorb the lessons of science, and to adapt and shape our behaviour to provide optimum experiences for our children.

09 December 2005, The Age (Melbourne), Child custody bill flawed: Nicholson
By Jewel Topsfield, Canberra

Former Family Court Chief Justice Alastair Nicholson has accused the Government of pandering to militant fathers' groups by requiring the court to consider whether children in custody disputes should spend equal time with both parents.
Under a bill introduced to Parliament yesterday, the Family Court would be required to consider whether this is practicable and in the best interests of the child. But Mr Nicholson told ABC radio the premise of the bill was fundamentally flawed and could even be detrimental to children in disputes.
"Most people are in situations where that sort of mathematical division of a child's time is not in the interests of the child and it's really not practical for the parents so it doesn't strike me as a great advance at all," he said.
"I think that's more or less an attempt to, if you like, pander to the strong pressure that's been put on the Government by various militant fathers' groups." However, Mr Nicholson said he supported other proposed changes which would lead to a less adversarial approach to custody disputes.
Under the legislation, the Family Court must consider an arrangement for "substantial and significant time" with both parents if equal time is not appropriate.
"This means more than just weekends and holidays, it means doing the day-to-day things with children - tucking them into bed, picking them up after school, helping them with homework," Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said. "It also means a mix of nights and days with children."
Parents would also need to consult and agree with each other on major long-term issues affecting their children's future, such as where their child goes to school or major health decisions. The bill also introduces harsher penalties for parents who breach contact orders.
Shared parenting and men's groups applauded the proposed changes.

09 December 2005, The Age (Melbourne), Divorce, the Australian way
By Fergus Shiel

Thirty years ago, a radical change to family law established the Family Court of Australia. The old grounds for divorce, such as adultery and habitual drunkenness were dumped, and a no-fault system introduced.
The old system was not only pointless - fault was impossible to prove - it was humiliating. But taking the fault out of divorce hasn't been a cure-all.
Former Family Court chief Alastair Nicholson explained last year: "It was a good thing to do to get rid of fault, but I don't think anyone realised that the fights don't lie in the grounds, although they might have appeared to do so. The fights are always going to be about the children and property."
About one in three marriages will end in divorce but divorces are now much more likely to be amicable, despite the impression the court's critics might give.
And 95 per cent of child custody arrangements are resolved between parents on separation or during mediation.
Academic research on parental judgements made in the Family Court indicates a general preference for keeping children with the parent with whom they are already living.
Equally, it shows a preference not to separate siblings, a preference for the mother-child relationship and of the biological parent relationship, and concern for the wishes of the child.
Since the introduction of the Family Law Act 1975, the sole ground for divorce has been that the marriage has "broken down irretrievably".
Between 1959 and 1975, a fault-based divorce system was in place, which provided 14 grounds for the grant of a decree of dissolution of marriage ("divorce").
The grounds included adultery, desertion, cruelty, habitual drunkenness, imprisonment and insanity. To succeed on one of these grounds, a spouse had to prove marital fault.
Obtaining proof of infidelity often required hiring a solicitor and a private detective to collect evidence to support the claim, including damning photographs, witness reports and hotel receipts.
Not only was this an expensive and emotionally tortuous process, but it often led to salacious and intimate details of cases involving celebrities making headlines, adding public humiliation to private agony.
There was only one no-fault ground: separation for more than five years.
Attorney-General Lionel Murphy proposed the move to no-fault divorce in 1973 to enable marriages that had irretrievably broken down to be dissolved by simple, dignified and inexpensive proceedings.
Today, obtaining a divorce is an administrative exercise for most couples. No wrong in either party has to be proved; the court has simply to be satisfied that the parties had been separated for at least a year before applying to divorce.
For most divorcing spouses, it is matter of agreeing that they separated on a particular date, filling in an application form and paying a filing fee. Lawyers are not required.
Where there is no child under 18 years or the parties make a joint application, the couple does not have to go to court. Parties married for less than two years must usually attend counselling before filing a divorce application.
Unlike its predecessor, the Family Law Act 1975 protects people's privacy by banning the publication of details of family law cases that would identify parties, associates or witnesses.

09 December 2005, Family Court of Australia, Family Law Rules 2005 amendments
The major changes introduced by the amendments, Changes to Court forms

A number of changes have been made to Family Court forms as a result of the Family Law Amendment Rules 2005 (No 3) being approved by a majority of the Court's judicial officers.
The amendments have been required to incorporate changes brought about by:

• The Family Law Amendment (Annuities) Act 2004 related to the splitting of eligible annuities in the same way as other superannuation.
• The Bankruptcy and Family Law Legislation Amendment Act 2005 to provide for creditors and any other person whose interests may be affected by the making of an order to become a party to proceedings; also to provide for a trustee of a personal insolvency agreement to be joined as a party to proceedings.
• The Family Law Amendment Act 2005, providing for the enforcement of obligations under a bond.
• To cater for the changes to the Family Law Rules concerning the notice required to be given to a superannuation trustee.

Changes to the Application for Consent Orders (Form 11) take effect on 1 December 2005
This form is amended as follows:

• By expanding item 20 to apply to a debtor subject to a personal insolvency agreement.
• By introducing item 22 (and subsequent re-numbering of all items after that) requiring the person(s) completing the form to indicate if there is a person who may be entitled to become a party under sub-section 79(10) of the Family Law Act, and if so, whether written notice has been given to that person.
• By expanding item 52 to include an "eligible annuity" as an option.
• By amending Parts I and K to bring the references to the notice that must be given to a trustee of a superannuation plan in line with the recent amendments to Rules 10.16 and 14.06 of the Family Law Rules.

Changes to other forms will apply from 1 February 2006, see following.

Application for Final Orders (Form 1)
This form is amended as follows:

• By providing for items 20, 21 and 22 to be completed when an application is made for spouse maintenance.
• By expanding item 22 to apply to a debtor subject to a personal insolvency agreement.

Response to an Application for Final Orders (Form 1A)
This form is amended as follows:

• By providing for Part G to apply to an application for spouse maintenance.
• By expanding item 18 to apply to a debtor subject to a personal insolvency agreement.

Reply (Form 1B)
This form is amended as follows:

• By providing for Part C to apply to an application for spouse maintenance.
• By expanding item 5 to apply to a debtor subject to a personal insolvency agreement.
• By ensuring that the heading to Part D covers separate applications for property settlement and spouse maintenance.

Application in a Case (Form 2)
This form is amended to correct an inconsistency with the Family Law Rules in the "Important Notices to the Respondent" on page 4. Under the heading "For all other applications" the notice will indicate that a copy of the documents filed must be served on each other party not less than two days rather than seven days before the court date.

Financial Statement (Form 13)
This form is amended by expanding item 45 to include an "eligible annuity" as an option.

Application - Contravention (Form 18)
This form is amended to provide for its use when it is alleged that a bond has been contravened.

09 December 2005, The Age (Melbourne), A court where wisdom and compassion are in order

Changes proposed to Australia's family law should help deliver results in the interests of children.
Judges of any court exercising jurisdiction over matters dealing with family disputes - especially the custody of children - are expected to have even greater wisdom than Solomon. The biblical king famously ordered that a baby, claimed by two mothers as their own, be split in half. One was prepared to accept the decision. The real mother, of course, begged him to let the baby live and deliver it to the other woman.
The parties appearing in the Family Court of Australia in custody disputes are not always so predictable. The court, about to celebrate the 30th anniversary of its first sitting, was the first federal court to directly touch upon the lives of ordinary Australians. It did so in relation to the most intimate and personal aspects of their affairs. And it did so in ways that were alien to the public perception of justice. At first its judges were in mufti rather than sombre wigs and gowns. It had counsellors and an emphasis on mediation ahead of arbitration. The court struggled for acceptance as a "real court" and there are still some who refuse to acknowledge its authority. A measure of its early troubles include the murder of one judge and the death of another's wife in a bombing.
Custody cases are invariably the most difficult of any before the Family Court. Most couples, even at the most difficult point of their relationship breakdown, are able to reconcile sufficiently to come to an arrangement on their children. Often the role of the court is simply one of process: it endorses and gives legal weight to these privately negotiated agreements. Those couples who cannot, either through their own efforts or with the help of mediation, come to an agreement, end up before the court for a determination. By the time they reach the steps of the building, they are ready to do battle. Children become pawns in an elaborate, selfish and often destructive endgame. Former chief justice of the Family Court Alastair Nicholson, long concerned at the effect of the heated adversarial proceedings upon children, has gone so far as to suggest there is a need for a separate court specialising in children's issues.
More than two years ago, Prime Minister John Howard suggested that the Family Law Act might be amended to automatically give divorcing parents joint custody of their children. Such an arrangement would not necessarily meet the court's overriding responsibility to act in the best interest of the child. As The Age pointed out at the time, it was both an unrealistic and potentially dangerous proposal. The parliamentary committee that last year reviewed Australia's family law agreed. A new bill to be introduced in Federal Parliament reflects those reservations, while pointing to some of the most significant changes to the law since the jurisdiction was created 30 years ago.
Under the proposed legislation, a court will be compelled to consider whether children in custody disputes should spend equal time with both parents. This is certainly more than many groups lobbying for improved rights of access expected. Importantly, the bill does not create a presumption of equal division of time between parents. Instead it builds on the existing law by insisting on equal shared parenting responsibility in important decisions about the children of the marriage. It also clarifies the law in relation to the definition of family violence so as to avoid this provision itself being abused.
The Age considers the reforms proposed are sensible and more likely to lead to just results than the current arrangements. It is also a much less prescriptive arrangement than Mr Howard originally suggested. Given that each family's circumstances are unique, leaving a good deal of discretion to the court can only be in the interests of children. But the notion of equal parental responsibility depends on co-operation between the parents and between parents and children. It will fail unless parents put the interests of children first. Unfortunately, that is something that Parliament cannot legislate for, any more than it can pass laws to take away the pain and conflict almost invariably attached to divorce.

09 December 2005, Shared Parenting Council of Australia
FAMILY LAW AMENDMENT (SHARED PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY) BILL 2005
The fourth pillar to the family reform measures is a solid piece of work

The Shared Parenting Council of Australia congratulates the Prime Minister John Howard, Attorney General Philip Ruddock, the Federal Government members and opposition members who have supported the Bill through working parties, for taking decisive action and making the tough decisions in reforming the archaic Family Law Act 1975.
The introduction of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005 marks a landmark turning point for children of separated and divorced families across Australia.
"Today the light of democracy beamed out across this land as the Government took decisive action to strengthen children's right to an opportunity for equal or substantially equal relationships with both their parents", Mr. Ed Dabrowski, Federal Director of the Shared Parenting Council of Australia, said. "This is the greatest achievement in the support of human rights this country has experienced in recent history", said Mr. Dabrowski.
"It is the mark of a civilized society that values its families and parents and children. We have witnessed today and over the many years of this reform process, great statesmanship and leadership by our government which has shown the greatest respect and sensitivity for vulnerable children of divorce who deserve the love and protection of both their mother and father", said Mr. Dabrowski.
"Through its reform agenda and legislation introduced today, we have witnessed this Government do more to support the rights of children to the love and nurture of their parents than any other Australian Government in any other period in living memory. The legislation clearly protects children from violence and abuse with a range of new measures.
"The Bill coupled with the other three key pillars of reform through the Child Support legislation reforms, the creation of the Family Relationship Centers and the changes being implemented by the Family Court themselves to facilitate a new way of doing business, are sure to become a world setting precedent that other countries will rush to adopt", said Mr. Dabrowski.
"This is not a father's rights or mother's rights issue," said Mr. Butler the Executive Secretary of the Council. "This is about arresting the devastating outcomes for children that have resulted from over 30 years of failed Family Law policies.
The current legislation does not work in many cases and children are deprived and alienated from good mums and dads when one parent petitions the court to exclude the other parent and forces a minimal or limited contact regime on the excluded parent or grandparent.
The current wide-ranging changes in the new legislation through this Bill have been carefully crafted over three years, through much effort; with consultation from many sections of the community and the tireless efforts of a number of key and dedicated Parliamentary members and external groups who have participated in bringing this exciting legislation to fruition," said Mr. Butler.
The Shared Parenting Council of Australia and its member organisations is confident that the emphasis toward Shared Parenting outcomes through a backdrop of comprehensive and decisive legislative framework can only lead to more proper negotiated settlements and an immediate rise in cooperative parenting which is in the best interest of children.
"Many more children will have the physical stability of two homes and continuation of their local friends and school, with the emotional stability that comes from the security of knowing that two parents love them and that after separation or divorce, they will continue to preserve and develop lasting relationships with both of their parents", said Mr. Dabrowski.
"Never in the history of legislative change have we seen such a program of well thought out reforms that will give hope to the children of separating parents in Australia who simply want love, comfort and time with both parents." said Mr. Dabrowski.
For further information:
Ed Dabrowski, Federal Director: 0409 917 345
Wayne Butler, Secretary: 0411 850 677
Michael Green QC, President: 0419 407 289

08 December 2005, The Coffs Coast Advocate, MUMS JOIN DADS IN CALL FOR HELP
By MEL MARTIN

DIVORCE and separation is extremely stressful for both partners, and can sometimes end tragically.
But it's particularly distressing for children, and that's not something Tony Miller can just sit back and watch.
So, the founder of Dads in Distress (DIDS), with his team of volunteers, has decided to expand his support service and create Mums in Distress (MIDS).
"We receive thousands and thousands of calls from all over the country, not just from dads but also from mums searching for some help for themselves," Mr Miller said.
"The feedback is mums are not getting that help, because no other organisation offers this type of support -that is a safe place where people can share their feelings."
And Mr Miller says that support is crucial for men and women alike.
"I always thought women shared a lot more with friends, but they often feel very isolated and feel they don't have anyone to talk to when going through a divorce," he said.
"It's a little like holding a glass of water. You'd be okay holding it up for 30 minutes, after two hours you might get a sore arm, but after 24 hours, someone is likely to be calling an ambulance - same weight, same burden.
"It's the same with emotions, the longer you pent them up, the worse they become, and if you store up all that bitterness, grief and anger, it eats you from the inside."
Now that Mums in Distress support groups have started in Coffs Harbour, Mr Miller is set to expand it across the country, only limited by funding and volunteer help.
"Once word gets out, it's going to go through the roof, because it's so desperately needed," he said.
"We had the first meeting on Monday, and had about eight people attending. And that's even before we did any promotion."
Mr Miller also hopes in the future to bring DIDS and MIDS together in mediated groups to talk and help them understand what each is feeling and going through.
"And something that's been in my heart for a long time is to start a KIDS - Kids in Distress," he said.
"MIDS is a huge step forward for mums and dads, but mostly for children, because there are no winners in divorce, only losers."
Dads in Distress, which has 25 groups across Australia, and now Mums in Distress, which is in need of female volunteers, offer support for people going through the trauma of relationship breakdown, separation and divorce, often offering suicide intervention.
Mums in Distress support groups will be held every Monday at 12pm at the Mud Huts, Duke Street, Coffs Harbour.
Clients and potential volunteers can access the service by calling 1300 853 437.

08 December 2005, Dads in Distress

Dads in Distress Inc announced today the formation of "Mums in Distress" a support group based on the same concept as Dads in Distress.
"There are no winners in divorce and separation especially our children." says dids Founder Tony Miller.
The reality is mums suffer just as much as dads with the end result of our children ending in distress. We receive thousands of calls and emails from mums especially within the second marriage scenario who are struggling and with no where to go. Dads struggling with supporting two families, mums doing the balancing act trying to keep a relationship going and caught in the middle of the crossfire. The feedback we have received is that mums are not getting that help. Now they have a place to go.
Dads in Distress held the first Mums in Distress meeting in Coffs Harbour this week and the group is set to expand rapidly across the country only limited by funding and volunteer help. We offer mums a safe place to share their feelings along the same lines as a dids meeting, without judgement. Often mums going through divorce feel isolated and unable to talk to friends. That's where "mids" can help. If you store up all that bitterness, anger and grief, it will eventually eat you away from the inside. There are 5 males a day suiciding in this country and there are also 2 females and many more that attempt, we need to address that says Tony Miller.
Dads in Distress is not a men's rights group it's about EQUALITY and SUPPORT of all going through the trauma of divorce or separation. it's about our children. It's about them not having to suffer because mum and dad have gone to war. Eventually says Mr Miller the goal is to get mum and dad talking, experiencing each other's pain and coming to a better understanding about what's best for their children. We are fighting a war and we are battling it out in the lounge rooms of our homes and we are doing it right in front of our kids, what are we teaching them? says Mr Miller.
There are now 25 dids groups meeting regularly around the country. "Mids" is sadly needed and is a huge step forward for mums and dads but especially our children. And the next step is to establish "KIDS" "Kids in Distress" as a mentoring program run along the same line as "dids" and "mids" within our schools. Every second child is going through the same pain as we are and through a mentoring program we can reach those kids while they are still in school and teach them that it's ok to talk about how they feel and realise that it's ok to feel and that there is light at the end of the tunnel.

08 December 2005, ABC - PM, Transcript - Govt makes big changes to family law
Reporter: Tom Iggulden

MARK COLVIN: The Government says amendments that it brought into Parliament today represent the biggest changes to family law in 30 years. They're certainly among the first big changes to the Family Law Act since it was passed in 1975.
But many of those who practise in this emotional area of the law say the amendments won't have much effect on their day-to-day work, and will do nothing to address the heartache and tragedy that often accompany family law cases.
Tom Iggulden reports.
TOM IGGULDEN: Perhaps one of the reasons that, until today, the Family Law Act hasn't been revised for 30 years is because of the emotion surrounding the issue.
Since announcing the Government's amendments to the act, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has been accused of taking the side of embittered fathers who have lost most or all of their access to their children.
The new law will, says Mr Ruddock, start with the presumption that parenting will be an equal responsibility for separated parents.
PHILIP RUDDOCK: It is not always possible, particularly around employment issues, for matters to be resolved in a way in which you cut children up like Solomon and say you'll spend half your time here and half your time there.
And that's not what we're arguing. What we're arguing is you have to look at how these issues can best be addressed. You have to have that uppermost in your mind, as a matter for consideration.
And if the courts are doing that now, then it doesn't present a problem. But if the courts haven't been doing it, for those who think that the way in which they've done it is best, with ignoring those outcomes, this will present the opportunity for change.
TOM IGGULDEN: But those on both the bench and the bar at the family court say the court already starts with parental equality and the best interests of the child at the core of proceedings.
Alastair Nicholson is the recently retired Family Court Chief Justice.
ALASTAIR NICHOLSON: I think the downside of it is that if. not so much from the effect on the court, but from the effect on people negotiating, they may think they're bound to start at a 50-50 division of time. And again, I don't think that's in the child's interest.
TOM IGGULDEN: Stuart Fowler is a Sydney barrister who's practised family law for 45 years.
The only impact he sees from the legislation is a change in perception on the part of his clients, a change not reflected in the way the Family Court will proceed into the future.
STUART FOWLER: I think there's going to be a clear change in the way in which lawyers talk to their clients, because the public expectation has been, I think, raised in a way which doesn't reflect the legislation.
TOM IGGULDEN: And while the Attorney-General denies the new laws have been designed with single fathers in mind, the vast majority of parents who receive custody are mothers. And there's at least a hint of redressing the balance in the Attorney-General's rhetoric.
PHILIP RUDDOCK: The right that is often not recognised, but you see it in many adults, is the hurt and suffering when because parents can't get on together, children are denied the opportunity to know one of them at all, some times trying to re-establish connection in their more mature years
TOM IGGULDEN: But Mr Fowler thinks that's a poor basis on which to develop legislation.
STUART FOWLER: There are cases such as those to which he refers. And there's an old saying that hard cases make bad law. What we need to do is to look at the overall scheme for resolving disputes between parents, concerning the welfare of their children.
What really needs to be done in our society is to educate parents to the view that what they do affects their children, that their children are not objects of ownership but they are little people who have their own bundle of rights which are very, very important, and which are given paramouncy (sic) in a consideration of their future welfare.
MARK COLVIN: Family law barrister Stuart Fowler ending Tom Iggulden's report.

08 December 2005, The Age (Melbourne), Across the angry divide
By Liz Gooch and Jewel Topsfield

Changes to the way the Family Court deals with child custody cases are being hailed by fathers' groups as a victory for their long campaigns. But is it that simple? By Liz Gooch and Jewel Topsfield.
It is an area of law full of bitterness and contention, of families in crisis - and of fathers who claim to have been sold short by a legal system that is hostile to their claims. Michael Woods - not his real name - tells such a story of his encounter with the Family Court.
When he separated from his wife in 1997, he maintained custody of their five children. That is, he says, until his former wife discovered her entitlement to child support and started taking back the children, aged from one to 10.
"When the matter came to the Family Court ... the status quo had been established and on that basis she gained custody of the five kids," he says. In the end, he negotiated to see his children two weekends out of every three and for half of the school holidays. But, he says, it is not enough and he is angry.
Under changes proposed to the Family Law Act this week by the Federal Government, described as the biggest shake-up in family law in 30 years, a judge hearing his case would need to consider whether his children should spend equal time with both parents.
Woods believes making equal time the starting point would be an improvement but he doubts this will bring any substantial change. "What the law will say and what the judges do are two different things," he says. "The benefit of the legislation may well be a cultural change but it's only an incremental change. It will take maybe 10 years for it to have any significant impact."
His feelings are not shared by all fathers. Many fathers' groups yesterday hailed the changes as positive and in line with submissions they have been making to government for years. Mothers' groups, meanwhile, despaired of the changes, some describing them as disastrous. Where lies the truth? According to lawyers who specialise in family law, the changes may not be as radical as the fathers would like to believe.
Still, one of the most outspoken critics of the changes was former Family Court Chief Justice Alastair Nicholson.
"The court has always been compelled to consider a situation that's in the best interests of the child," he said. "But the real problem ... is that it presumes that that is an ideal situation, whereas in most cases it's not for all sorts of reasons. I think that's more or less an attempt to, if you like, pander to the strong pressure that's been put on the Government by various militant fathers' groups."
What is beyond dispute is that the changes follow sustained lobbying by men's groups. For years aggrieved fathers have inundated politicians' offices with tales of thwarted access to their children, false allegations of violence and drawnout dealings with the Family Court. There are up to 200 men's groups in Australia, according to estimates. They have evocative names such as Dads in Distress and the Lone Father's Association.
According to grim research published this year by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, 26 per cent of children from broken families see the parent who lives elsewhere - usually the father - less than once a year. The most common type of contact, affecting 34 per cent of children from split families, is spending every weekend or every other weekend with the non-resident parent. The research, based on interviews with almost 500 households, found that only 6 per cent of children spend close to equal time with both parents.
The research found "emerging evidence that a regime of every-other-weekend, father-child contact may diminish his importance to children".
An overhaul of the Family Law Act was flagged by Attorney-General Philip Ruddock earlier this year and investigated by the legal and constitutional affairs committee, chaired by Liberal MP Peter Slipper. "Too many parents fight in the courts for years, wasting money they should be using to raise their children," Ruddock told Parliament yesterday when introducing the bill. Ruddock said the changes were the culmination of years of work by a large number of people. He said he had personally received thousands of letters from grandparents, mothers, fathers and many others affected by the family law system. "The Government wants to change the culture of family breakdown from litigation to co-operation," Ruddock said.
The proposed legislation introduces a presumption of equal parental responsibility. This means that both parents have an equal role in making a decision. Parents will need to consult and agree with each other on major long-term issues affecting a child's future, such as where the child goes to school or major health decisions.
The Family Court will be required to consider children spending equal time with both parents, although this will only apply if it is in the best interests of the child and "reasonably practicable". If it is not appropriate, the court must consider an arrangement for "substantial and significant time" with both parents.
"This means more than just weekends and holidays, it means doing the day-today things with children - tucking them into bed, picking them up after school, helping them with homework," Ruddock said. "It also means a mix of nights and days with children."
All separating parents will need to attend mediation before taking a dispute to the Family Court. As part of the overhaul, the Government will spend $400million over four years to set up 65 family relationship centres, which will provide three hours of free counselling for separating couples.
Under the changes, women will have to demonstrate a "reasonable" fear of violence to be exempted from forced conciliation or equal child custody with former partners.
There was heated debate when these changes to the legal definition of family violence were first canvassed this year. Women's groups warned it would put women and children in danger, while the men's lobby approved the move, saying it would stop men being deprived of access to their children through false claims of violence.
The legislation will also introduce harsher penalties for parents who breach custody arrangements. Courts will be able to impose compensation for expenses such as wasted airfares and "make up" time, such as another weekend, when a contact visit was missed.
For years, Liberal MP Alby Schultz lobbied the Government to make changes to family law, after his electorate office in rural NSW was deluged with letters and visits from anguished men desperate for contact with their children.
Schultz says he counselled men whose lives and reputations were destroyed after their ex-partners had falsely claimed they were violent to deny them access to their children. "In the past five weeks my office staff and myself have stopped about seven males from taking their own lives because of the pressure on them." Schultz says he is "exceptionally pleased" by changes to the law, which will allow fathers to spend more time with their children. "The previous system, where fathers were denied that access, contributed to a significant number of suicides," Schultz says. "Anything that makes the system fairer, relieves the psychological pressure on males and reduces the suicide rate has to be good for the country."
Anne Rees, deputy chairwoman of the Law Council's family law section, says the Federal Government's proposed family law changes should not be misunderstood to mean that parents would be required to share custody equally.
"It is very important that people who are reading this understand that it is not introducing a presumption that both parents should spend equal time with their children," she says. "Indeed that proposal was specifically rejected."
Rees says the changes recognise a child's right to spend substantial time with their parents but there was infinite variation in court orders about how this could be done.
"Courts have always had to consider what arrangements are in the best interests of the child and in many cases one parent proposes equally shared arrangements and then it up to the judge to decide if they are appropriate," she says.
"As I understand it, part of the Government's aim in redrafting the Family Law Act is to inform separating couples who do not go to court that such arrangements ought to be considered."
Barry Williams, national president of the Lone Father's Association, says the changes are a victory for all family members.
"It's a big victory for the children and it's a big victory for both parents because there is nothing better than the children to be able to share the emotional and privileged time with both parents and this will work close to doing that," he says.
Williams, whose organisation has been lobbying for equal parenting for 30 years, believes the changes will give children the right to have meaningful contact with both parents.
"Instead of just having them every second weekend and half of school holidays and especially in places where both people live in the same town and they go to the school, then why not have a shared care situation so the children still have two parents?"
Williams, who met Ruddock in Canberra yesterday, says his organisation wants to see the law around making allegations of violence tightened to avoid people making "smear allegations". He says people should have to be convicted before they are prevented from seeing their children.
Williams says the changes are exactly what the organisation had suggested in a 1990 submission to Parliament.
"They've used it but changed the name," he says.
Joanna Fletcher, spokeswoman for Women's Legal Services Australia, says the legislation would not consider the child's best interests.
"It's legislation that's going to encourage parents to focus even more on what they perceive to be their rights to spend equal time with their children, regardless of what the parenting arrangements have been when the family was in tact," she says.
Dr Elspeth McInnes, convener of the National Council for Single Mothers, describes the changes as disastrous for children.
She believes the idea that fathers are automatically denied contact with the child when there is an allegation of violenceis false.
"It's incredibly rare for there to be no contact where a parent has sought it and we know of children being forced to have contact with sex offenders, with people with criminal records for assaulting other members of their family," she says.

08 December 2005, Sydney Morning Herald, Custody law hands victory to fathers
By Adele Horin and Nadia Jamal

The Family Court will be required to consider whether children in custody disputes should spend equal time with both parents under the most important changes to family law in 30 years.
A bill to be introduced into the House of Representatives today goes further than expected in meeting the demands of fathers' rights groups, which expressed disappointment at an earlier draft.
Under the proposed amendments to the Family Law Act 1975, the court will be required to consider equal time if it is in the child's best interests, and where parents already share parental responsibility for important decisions.
Where it is not in the child's best interest, and where it is not practical, the court must consider giving the non-resident parent "substantial and significant time" with the child.
As well, the Government will amend the existing definition of family violence to make clear that a fear or apprehension of violence must be "reasonable". This is a reaction to concerns that false claims of violence can be a way of denying access to children.
The bill also inserts a presumption of "equal" shared parental responsibility in important decisions - a significant hardening of earlier wording that called for "joint" parental responsibility.
A spokeswoman for the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, said: "The Government has recognised you can't divide a child 50/50. But we wanted to make sure parents could spend substantial and significant time with their children and they weren't just Disneyland dads or Movieworld mums."
Fathers' groups have fought a three-year campaign to obtain a presumption that children should divide their time equally between two households. The Government rejected making such a radical shift but has moved further in this direction than was indicated in the early draft of the bill released for comment in June.
This change is expected to generate a flood of litigation, family law experts say, with some non-resident parents expecting to get equal time or significantly more time with children than the usual orders for weekend access and half the school holidays under the current law.
The national president of the the Lone Fathers Association of Australia, Barry Williams, congratulated Mr Ruddock "for his persistence in this because he has had a lot of opposition to it from groups who don't want change". But Mr Williams said the court should only be able to stop equal time if a parent was proven to be a danger to a child.
"What we are saying is that we don't just want mere allegation . we mean being charged and convicted," he said.
A convener of the National Council for Single Mothers and their Children, Elspeth McInnes, feared "a children's presumption to access to a home will be erased and instead they will have a timetable of parental attendance".
"If they have to be required to spend the maximum time possible with each parent, then a child's right to expect any claim to a continuity of residence and primary care is not available under these provisions," Dr McInnes said.
In other amendments that will be interpreted as "father friendly", the bill will strengthen the existing enforcement rules by giving courts a wider range of powers to deal with parents who breach contact orders.
Mr Ruddock's spokeswoman said the amendments would help change a culture of litigation, and put children's interests at the centre. Children's right to know both parents and their right to be protected from harm would be the main factors in the court determining what is in their best interests.

08 December 2005
ATTORNEY-GENERAL THEHON PHILIP RUDDOCK MP, NEWS RELEASE
BILL MARKS 'CULTURAL SHIFT' IN DEALING WITH FAMILY BREAKDOWN

The most significant reforms to the family law system in 30 years were introduced into parliament today, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said.
Mr Ruddock said the introduction of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005 reflected the Government's determination to ensure the right of children to grow up with the love and support of both of their parents.
"The Bill will move the focus from the rights of parents to the best interests of children," Mr Ruddock said.
"These initiatives represent a generational change in family law and aim to bring about a cultural shift in how family separation is managed: away from litigation and towards cooperative parenting," Mr Ruddock said.
"The legislative changes reinforce improvements already underway with the rollout of 65 new Family Relationship Centres and increased funding to expand services to support family relationships."
The Bill implements the overwhelming majority of recommendations of the House of Representative Committee that looked at the exposure draft..

The major changes in the Bill are to:

• insert a presumption, or starting point, of equal shared parental responsibility. This means that both parents have an equal role in making decisions about major long term issues involving their children eg. choice of school
• require the court to consider whether children spending equal time with both parents is practical and in the best interests of the child. If it is not appropriate, court must consider substantial and significant time (including day to day routine ­ not just weekends or holidays)
• make the right of children to know their parents and be protected from harm the primary factors when deciding the best interests of the child
• amend the existing definition of family violence to make clear a fear or apprehension of violence must be 'reasonable'
• require the court to take into account parents who fail to fulfil their major responsibilities eg. failure to pay child support or turn up for contact handover
• give the power to impose costs against those who make false allegations of violence or abuse
• strengthen the existing enforcement regime by giving the courts a wider range of powers to deal with people who breach contact orders eg. cost orders; makeup time or compensation
• make all child-related proceedings in court less adversarial
• better recognise the role of grandparents in raising children after separation
• require people to make a genuine effort to resolve their dispute before applying to a court for a parenting order. This will not apply in inappropriate cases such as where there is family violence or abuse
• add a framework for accreditation of family dispute resolution practitioners and family counsellors, and
• make the relationship between parenting orders and State and Territory family violence orders clearer and easier to understand.

Media Contact: Charlie McKillop (02) 6277 7300/0419 278 715

05 December 2005, MSNBC (USA), Love hurts? So does a wounded marriage
Study shows quarreling couples have slower wound healing process

Reuters - CHICAGO - There is even more proof that an unhappy marriage is bad for your health, researchers reported Monday.
The stress that comes from discord appears to slow the initial production of a blood protein that is key to healing wounds, the report from Ohio State University said.
Quarreling couples studied in a laboratory setting had a slower wound healing process than when they were not arguing, as measured by how rapidly blisters healed. The blisters were deliberately inflicted on the test subjects by using a vacuum pump on the arm.
"Couples who demonstrated consistently higher levels of hostile behaviors ...healed at 60 percent of the rate of low-hostile couples," said the report published in the December issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry.
The authors said there is already a sizable body of research showing that marital disagreement causes adverse health impacts ranging from high blood pressure and depression to the ability to cope with heart disease and heart failure.
"Although loss of a spouse can provoke adverse mental and physical health changes, the simple presence of a spouse is not necessarily protective. A troubled marriage is itself a prime source of stress," the study said.
The Ohio State study involved 42 married couples, aged 22 to 77. They were tested twice - first in a social setting and then again when they were told to get into disagreements.
The authors said stress appears to slow the local, wound-site production of proinflammatory cytokines - protein molecules produced by white blood cells that play a key role in the early stages of healing.
But the study also found that couples with high degrees of conflict had higher levels of the same cytokines generally in the bloodstream the morning after an argument, compared to those who were not in as much disagreement.
While greater early production at wound sites is beneficial, the authors said, a higher systemic level is harmful.
"Elevated levels of proinflammatory cytokines have been linked to a variety of age-related disease, including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, arthritis ... certain cancers, and frailty and functional decline," the study said. "Moreover, inflammatory activation can enhance development of depressive symptoms."

04 December 2005, The Sunday Telegraph, Unfit parents to lose welfare payments
By Glenn Milne

Parents who fail to adequately care for their children will lose their welfare entitlements under a proposal being considered by Treasurer Peter Costello.
Instead, the payments will be diverted to the child's grandparents, legal guardians or the most responsible adult in the family.
"While there is still an extended family, familypayments should be directed where possible to those members of the family, who are prepared to be the primary support carers," Mr Costello said.
"Sadly, there are many cases where grandparents are being asked to step in to assume primary care of children because parents are unable, or unfit, to cope with the nurturing of children."
The idea is certain to spark debate about the rights of parents and the role of governments in determining parental suitability.
Mr Costello's proposal was inspired by a visit to remote Aboriginal communities, but he said it should be extended nationally.
He outlines his proposal in an article in the Liberal magazine Looking Forward, out tomorrow.
It is the first time the Treasurer has delivered on his pledge to begin talking about ideas outside his direct portfolio as part of his campaign to take over the Liberal leadership next year.
In the article, Mr Costello also calls for a review of income support payments generally.
"When income support provides food, shelter, education, opportunity, it supports family life," he says.
"Where it becomes an example to children of reward without effort, it undermines family life.
"Income support that is regarded as temporary assistance during periods of interrupted work, or interruptions to the availability for work, is an important family support.
"If it becomes a way of life, it has a demoralising effect on the parents, which is passed on with damaging effect to the children."
Speaking of his visit to Arukun, Mr Costello said: "One elder claimed that parental responsibility had broken down to such an extent that parents now expected grandparents to assume this role.
"They cited high unemployment and alcoholism among this generation as other signs that discipline and responsibility had fallen by the wayside. .
"The elders at Arukun expressed a desire for the Government to redirect income support away from the negligent parents who, they claimed, misused it, to those who would use it responsibly.
"At one level, this would take away support for families, but in a more significant way it would reinforce family responsibility."

Dads In Distress is funded by the Australian Federal Government.