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

31 March 2009
The Australian

Mother loses kids for anti-dad stance
By Caroline Overington

Two children who have been in the care of their mother since their parents separated in 2005 have been sent from Hobart to live with their father in Melbourne after the Family Court heard the mother encouraged them to have "negative" feelings about their dad.

The two children - a girl, aged nine, and a boy, aged seven - had been struggling with "change overs" between parents, saying things such as "I don't want to go" and "I don't have to go" when their father arrived in Tasmania from Melbourne to collect them for access visits.

The court found the mother did not discourage them from saying these things, and did not encourage a positive relationship between the children and their father.

The children told counsellors they were angry their father had left their mother, and lived with his new girlfriend in Melbourne.

Family Court judge Robert Benjamin said the children "clearly wanted" to stay with their mother, who had been their primary carer since birth, and acknowledged the "disruption to the children's family unit and their stability if they were to move to Melbourne to live with their father".

But Justice Benjamin said the "mother could see what was happening at change overs and did little about it".

"I have concerns that this will continue in the future," he said.

"Sadly, this is a case where the children may be at unacceptable risk of psychological harm if they remain with the mother."

Justice Benjamin said the girl, B, was becoming "emotionally estranged from her father" and was at risk of "psychological damage, if not psychiatric damage" if she was not allowed to have a relationship with her father.

The decision was made under new laws, introduced by the Howard government, that require the Family Court to adopt the presumption of "shared parenting" when dealing with children of divorce.

The Australian last week reported on new data that showed fathers had a much better chance of getting access to their children by going through the Family Court than they did by negotiating directly with their ex-wives.

A review of recent cases found fathers were given majority custody in 17 per cent of litigated cases, compared with just 8 per cent of cases settled directly with their ex-partners.

The Australian has also reported the case of NSW deputy fire chief Ken Thompson's wife, who fled Australia with their son Andrew, saying the Family Court had become biased towards fathers.

In the case of the brother and sister sent from Hobart to Melbourne, Justice Benjamin ordered the children be removed from their mother's care, and to see her for school holidays and Mother's Day. She is also entitled to a phone call "each Sunday between 6.30pm and 7.30pm".

The court took evidence from a psychologist who helped facilitate a change over between the parents on June 27 last year.

When the time came for the children to get into the car with their father, the girl "started what can only be described as a mantra, or a chant".

"She kept repeating: 'I don't want to go' and 'I don't have to go'," the psychologist told the court. "When her father greeted her, she (said), 'I hate you'.

"The father showed me photographs of the last visit he had with the children, where they were cuddling, laughing and clearly having a very happy time."

The father put the children in the car, but B "was trying to climb out the window" while her brother was "distressed and was hitting and kicking".

B gave the psychologist a list that said: "I don't want to go with my father because he tells lies, he hurts me, he left our family and he has got a girlfriend and I don't like her."

"These children are slowly indoctrinated into believing that their father is cruel and unkind and likely to hurt them, when this is not the case," the psychologist said.

27 - 29 March 2009
Canadian Symposium For Parental Alienation Syndrome (Canada)

Educational Symposium in Toronto

My name is Joseph Goldberg and I am the Founder of The Canadian Symposium For Parental Alienation Syndrome. We are dedicated to the prevention of one of the worst forms of Psychological Child Abuse - Parental Alienation & Parental Alienation Syndrome.

Hundreds of thousands of children in Canada suffer from this form of child abuse. Our International Educational Symposium will be taking place in Toronto at The Metro Toronto Convention Center March 27th - March 29th, 2009

The leading Doctors and Experts in the world, will be attending as Speakers. Our conference will be able to help thousands of mental health professionals with treatment and intervention solutions.

In addition there will be thousands of family law attorney's, mediators, Judges, child abuse investigators, professionals dealing with supervised visitation, law enforcement officers and many other professionals coming to this conference.

One of the worst forms of child abuse is " psychological abuse " and Parental Alienation in its most severe form results - in a Parental Alienation Syndrome.

With Kindest Regards,
Joseph Goldberg
Founder of CSPAS
Canadian Symposium For Parental Alienation Syndrome


Please visit our website at www.CSPAS.ca

28 March 2009
The New York Times

Fighting Over Child Support After the Pink Slip Arrives
By Julie Bosman

The same story echoed a dozen times through Room E8 of Manhattan Family Court in a single day: fathers, pinched by the recession, pleading for a reduction in child support.

A salesman at Saks Fifth Avenue who is estranged from his teenage daughter said he feared he would be included in the next round of layoffs expected at his store.

A man who had been laid off from a factory said he managed to find work at Mets games, but for less pay, $9 an hour. Another man, on the verge of eviction, begged for a break from his $315 monthly payments.

"Last week was my child's birthday, and I couldn't get him a present," he said, burying his head in his hands. "This is killing me."

Since January, Family Court in New York has been filled with urgent requests like these, alarming judges and overwhelming calendars with what are known as modification cases.

Similar patterns are unfolding across the country: In Clark County, Nev., which includes Las Vegas, the district attorney's family support division has received an unusually high number of calls from parents who previously paid diligently but are now having trouble.

The child-support office in Milwaukee saw a 20 percent spike in the number of custodial parents seeking enforcement of support orders last year, with most of the increase coming in the fall as the unemployment rate there began to creep upward.

To explain why they can no longer pay as much per month, the parents, typically fathers, cite layoffs, cutbacks in work hours and the loss of homes to foreclosure. Presented with documentation of falling incomes and rising expenses, judges often have little choice but to grant the downward adjustments, even in the face of protests from mothers struggling to support children.

Magistrate Matthew Troy, a stocky, gregarious man with a white horseshoe mustache who is one of 15 judges hearing such cases in Manhattan Family Court, said the decisions can be brutal. "It's not a trickle down - it's a direct route," he said of the effects, especially in poor families. "Everybody who relies on the father gets hit."

The reductions force some families to apply for welfare for the first time, while others become increasingly dependent on food stamps or risk eviction when they come up short on rent.

"In many cases, it's devastating," said C. A. Watts, the director of the district attorney's family support division for Clark County. "Some of the parents absolutely depend on that money coming in. It's a domino effect. The custodians need the money to feed and clothe the children. If the money stops, it puts a burden on the custodial parent, and they have to come up with funds another way. They're not going to let their children starve."

The amount of child support varies based on individual family circumstances, but New York State begins with these guidelines: A noncustodial parent generally pays 17 percent of gross income for one child, 25 percent for two children and up to 35 percent for five or more children, as well as a share of child care, medical and education expenses.

"We see everything," said Peter Passidomo, chief of the state's 125 support magistrates. "High income, low income, across the board. It's just like in an intact family where the income earner has lost the job."

Though Family Court in New York is open to the news media, names of the parties are typically not revealed.

Judge Troy, who has been a Family Court judge since 1999, said that in recent weeks he had seen a former Lehman Brothers executive whose $7 million in stock had disappeared, leaving him unable to pay his child support. And then there was the divorced couple whose combined income had surpassed $400,000 - until they both lost their jobs and were scrambling to figure out how to pay two private-school tuitions on roughly $800 a week in unemployment benefits.

Most, though, are more like the man who went from a decent-paying factory job to working in food service during Mets games in Queens. Judge Troy lowered his monthly payment for his three teenagers to $50 per month, from $686. Otherwise, he feared, the father would be unable to meet his obligation and face a more drastic punishment: jail time.

"It wasn't his fault he lost his job," Judge Troy said. "I don't want to throw a guy like that in the clink."

The Saks salesman, on the other hand, whose 19-year-old daughter was asking for support for the first time, was ordered to pay $544 a month. (New York allows child support to be paid for dependents beyond age 18.)

In the case of the father who could not buy a birthday present for his son, Mr. Troy agreed that $315 a month - or 23 percent of his $16,640 salary - was too much. But the child's mother, over speakerphone from her home in Georgia, angrily protested that she was already paying $1,800 a month for the child's expenses.

"He is capable of getting another job," she said. "I see no reason for him to get any kind of modification of his child support."

The judge ultimately took the woman off speaker, and instead spoke quietly into the telephone to calm her down. He lowered the father's payments to $50 a month (about 4 percent of his gross income).

"Somebody's got to make the call," Judge Troy said after the hearing had adjourned. "That's the call I'm making."

Mr. Passidomo said magistrates throughout the state have grown increasingly concerned about the volume and breadth of the modification requests. Upstairs from Mr. Troy, in Room 8C3, Magistrate Sudeep Kaur said she sees herself as "very strict about reducing child support," but lately has had little choice in a spate of cases in which fathers have come to her after losing their jobs.

"It really has to be something beyond their control," she said.

Lisa J. Marks, the director of Child Support Enforcement in Milwaukee, said her office has seen an influx of noncustodial fathers who have lost jobs in sales, construction and the service industry.

"We have seen individuals who have had fairly good income, and it's not there any more," she said.

"It's really a teetering issue for child support offices," Ms. Marks said. "You have one party who is really desperate because they're not getting the full amount of support. And their expenses have increased, and their hours are probably decreasing."

On the flip side are the fathers, and "they don't have a job at all anymore," she said. "You try to maintain fairness."

The court will typically order fathers to pay a portion of their unemployment benefits in child support. But if their unemployment runs out, and they have no income, the court will temporarily resort to what is called "open support," Ms. Marks said. What that means, she explained, is "you don't have to pay any child support."

25 March 2009
The Record

Strong fathers, stable families best defence for society's ills: Hickey

Archbishop Barry Hickey re-emphasises the fundamental link between the state of marriage, fatherhood, and burgeoning social problems.

Stable families and committed fathers are society's best defence against crime and violence, and a great many other ills as well, Archbishop Barry Hickey said last week.

"Tougher laws and more prison sentences might have their place, but if we want to understand why our society has become so violent we must look at the state of marriage and family," he said.

"In 1993, when there was great concern about crime, Dr Alan Tapper, of Edith Cowan University, published the facts and figures to support his statement, 'family breakdown in the form of divorce and separation is the main cause of the crime wave'.

"Dr Tapper's conclusion has been endorsed by history and by countless other studies of the effect of family breakdown over the last 50 years.

"The effects of family breakdown are not limited to crime.

"Bryan Rodgers, reporting on Australian research findings in 'Australian Psychologist' in 1995, said: 'Australian studies with adequate samples have shown parental divorce to be a risk factor for a wide range of social and psychological problems in adolescence and adulthood, including poor academic achievement, low self-esteem, psychological distress, delinquency and recidivism, substance use and abuse, sexual precocity, adult criminal offending, depression and suicidal behaviour.'

He added: 'There is no scientific justification for disregarding the public health significance of marital dissolution in Australia, especially with respect to mental health.'

Archbishop Hickey said that the modern fashion for cohabitation instead of marriage did not help the adults or the children involved.

A longitudinal study of 512 Australian children, published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology in 1997, concluded: 'The relationship between cohabitation and delinquency is beyond contention: children of cohabiting couples are more likely to be found among offenders (and recidivists) than children of married couples.'

"The simple fact is that marriage is the best and safest place for adults and by far the best environment for raising children to be stable and competent adults who are able to contribute to society," the Archbishop said.

"Parents have a unique relationship with one another and with their children. It is rightly said of married couples that the two become one. It is also true that while children have relationships with each parent, they have that relationship within their parents' unity.

"That is why divorce is so damaging to the well-being of children and hence to the well-being of society.

"The second reason is that divorce too often results in the absence of the father from the family. This seriously impairs the ability of many children to grow into their own social relationships and ultimately their own successful marriages.

"A father's love for his wife, the mother of his children, is fundamental to his children growing up with the secure knowledge that they, too, are lovable.

"It is vital that the education of boys and young men should lead them to understand the importance of fidelity to their essential role in marriage and family.

"Both young men and young women should be warned that cohabitation seriously affects their ability to establish lasting marriages.

"It is time for all of us - individuals, families and social institutions - to acknowledge the harm that has been done by our casual disregard for the importance of lifelong marriages.

"Instead of blame for what has occurred, there is a real need for all of us to accept responsibility for upholding the importance of marriage - by example, by teaching and by encouragement and support for those who are married or are planning marriage.

"People naturally enter marriage with a desire for permanence.

"Therefore, we all have a responsibility to current and future generations to counter the misleading material published in books, magazines, films and television.

"Marriage is the only way to establish stable families in a stable society."

24 March 2009
The Daily Telegraph (Sydney)

Family Court's custody bias despite new laws
By Sue Dunlevy

The Family Court is still awarding mothers custody of children in 60 per cent of cases, despite a 2006 law creating a presumption of shared parental responsibility.

And mothers are getting custody of the children in 68 per cent of cases where parents agree on the custody arrangements themselves.

The first statistics released by the Family Court on custody arrangements show that in 2007 and 2008 the court awarded shared custody in just 15 per cent of cases.

Parents who decided on their own custody arrangements agreed to 50/50 shared care in just 19 per cent of cases. And in only 17 per cent of cases did the Family Court order children spend more than 50 per cent of their time with their father.

The court ordered children spend more than 50 per cent of their time with their mothers in more than 60 per cent of cases.

Although mothers continue to be awarded the bulk of custody there has been significant change in favour of fathers. In 1997 just 2.6 per cent of divorced parents shared the care of their children.

And Lone Fathers Association spokesman Barry Williams said in 2005 mothers were awarded custody 83 per cent of the time.

"There has been significant improvement," he said.

But he said that even though more fathers were being awarded shared care, mothers all too often did not give them access to the children.

The statistics show that the main reason fathers were granted access to children for less than 30 per cent of time was abuse and family violence (in 29 per cent of cases).

The law was changed after a House of Representatives inquiry in 2003.

Attorney General Robert McClelland admitted more may need to be done to stop custodial parents denying access to the children.

He said the Australian Institute of Family Studies was conducting an evaluation of the way the new shared care rules are working.

It will particularly look at whether the desire to reduce child support obligations was behind the actions of parents seeking shared care.

24 March 2009
The Australian

Dads who fight win favour in custody cases
By Michael Pelly

Fathers who want custody of their children will have more success in the Family Court than by trying to strike a deal with their ex-partners.

In a break with conventional wisdom, fathers are twice as likely to get majority custody of their children if they take their fight to the court.

A Family Court review shows fathers were given majority custody in 17 per cent of litigated cases, but only in 8 per cent of those settled by consent, or early agreement, with the mothers.

The review of the shared parental responsibility reforms of 2006 shows that in 14 per cent of litigated cases, the father received between 30 and 45 per cent of custody. This figure fell to 11 per cent for early agreements.

The review shows that, if fathers are given less than 30 per cent custody, abuse and violence are the main reasons. And about one in 12 court cases end with an order that a child should spend time with their grandparents.

The reforms, passed by the Howard government, introduced a rebuttable presumption of "equal time" parenting and were aimed at promoting co-operation over conflict.

However, only 15 per cent of the litigated cases and 19 per cent of the consent agreements ended in orders for 50-50 care between the parents.

The biggest group was mothers who were awarded the majority of time with their children - they represented 60 per cent of the litigated cases and 68 per cent of consent cases.

The survey assessed 1,448 of the 6,992 litigated cases in 2007-08, and 2719 of 10,575 cases settled by consent or early agreement.

The biggest group of men (33per cent) were those awarded less than 30 per cent custody. Abuse and family violence was the main reason in 29 per cent of these matters, followed by entrenched conflict (15 per cent).

Of the 9 per cent of cases in which women were awarded less than 30 per cent custody, mental health was the dominant factor in 31 per cent of cases followed by distance and financial barriers (16per cent) and abuse and family violence (16 per cent).

Substance abuse was cited as a main reason for the Family Court making sub-30 per cent orders, with 4per cent of the fathers were and 7 per cent of mothers.

In 6 per cent of litigated cases, the father was ordered to spend no time with their child. The same order applied to only 1 per cent of women.

The information, which was posted on the Family Court's website yesterday, came with a warning that the court considers only the most serious cases, with the remainder being handled by the Federal Magistrates Court.

When the Coalition passed the Family Law Amendment Act (Shared Parental Responsibility Act), it established 60 Family Relationship Centres around Australia as a first stop for couples in conflict.

"The aim was to encourage parents to consider, where appropriate, reaching an agreement regarding parenting arrangements in the first instance themselves rather than having the court as a first option," the court said yesterday.

"Given this, it is to be expected that there might be a higher number of shared care or substantial sharing of time cases negotiated outside the courts."

The figures show grandparents have been a beneficiary of the reforms, which specifically said their access rights were to be considered.

An estimated 560 cases - or 8per cent of the litigated cases - end with orders containing provision for time with grandparents. The figure fell to 2 per cent for consent agreements.

A spokeswoman for the Family Court said the statistics should not be compared with pre-2006 data because of the changes in legislation and the way the information was collected.

The court is working with the Australian Institute of Family Studies on cases that were decided before 2006 and can be compared with matters decided under the new legislation.

24 March 2009
The Age (Melbourne)

Feuding parents unlikely to get equal custody
By Carol Nader

Family Court judges seem reluctant to order that children spend equal time with parents in the most bitter and complex disputes, with only 15 per cent of such cases resulting in a 50-50 parenting split.

Mothers are more likely to be granted the most time with their children in the most acrimonious cases contested in court, according to Family Court figures.

Of mothers involved in contested cases, 60 per cent were granted main residence, or the majority of time.

Of fathers in such cases, 17 per cent were granted the majority of time. The analysis is based on almost 1,450 cases contested in court that were finalised in 2007-08.

Changes to family law that came into effect in July 2006 moved towards a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and an obligation for the Family Court to consider shared time between parents when it was thought to be in the best interests of children.

The figures suggest that in most of the more acrimonious cases, judges do not consider it in the best interests of children to evenly divide their time between parents, or even to have a more lopsided shared-care arrangement.

Of fathers involved in contested cases, 14 per cent were granted between 30 per cent and 45 per cent of time with their children.

Most separated couples come to their own agreements without going through the court. Matters that end up before the court are the most difficult and contentious. But it is unknown whether that has altered since the Howard government changes, as the figures for before 2006 were not released.

The Family Court granted 50-50 parenting in just 15 per cent of contested cases, but the picture is similar for parents who come to their own agreement and have it finalised by the court. A separate analysis of 2,700 of those cases shows that 19 per cent ended up in a 50-50 arrangement.

Family law specialist Caroline Counsel, vice-president of the Law Institute of Victoria, said judges and parents always had to make decisions about what was best for children.

"It is not in the children's best interests to be put in highly conflictual households where there are two households at war with each other," she said. "And all you're doing is accelerating the conflict if you are dividing a child's time in half. You are not giving that child a place where they can grow away from the conflict."

Australian National University associate professor in sociology Bruce Smyth said having parents share the care of their children was a growing trend, but there was a need to assess how children fared in these arrangements.

"Social change more broadly all around the world is moving towards increases in time sharing," he said. He said it was difficult enough to make shared care work when the parents got along, let alone when there was conflict.

"Kids often get used as spies, messengers and go-betweens ... when kids are stuck in a tug-of-war, it can take its toll," he said.

"The arrangements might be lasting if they're 50-50, but it might not mean that they're working well for kids."

21 March 2009
The Sydney Morning Herald

Divorced from your child's reality
By Adele Horin

Hearing your own kids speak about the impact of separation is breaking the cycle of acrimony, writes Adele Horin.

In any account of a failed marriage there are usually three stories - his, hers, and the children's. Adults can always find willing audiences for their war stories among friends and family, mediators and counsellors, and ultimately Family Court judges.

But children's voices are often lost in the tumult of rancorous partings and savage custody battles. Embarrassed to talk to friends, frightened of offending one parent or the other, and lost for the right words to express their emotions, children suffer in silence, or convey their distress through bad behaviour, bedwetting, withdrawal, or being overly good.

Richard and Glenda Taylor*, like most parents, knew intellectually that the continued battles and bitterness which extended for years after their separation could inflict lasting damage on their children. Counsellors had warned them how children suffer when caught in the battlezone. But when it came to their own children, a boy, now 12, and a girl, 11, both parents believed fervently they were acting in their "best interest" during four separate actions in the Family Court. Try as they might, they could not hide the antagonism at handover times, suppress the yelling, or even consider that perhaps the children's needs were being subsumed under the adults' agenda.

Then something happened. "A kick up the bum," Richard says. Glenda, in a separate interview, calls it "a reality check".

What happened was that the parents heard their children's divorce story through a neutral third person, as part of an approach to mediation that is proving life-changing.

It sounds simple enough. Feuding parents undergo mediation at agencies such as Unifam, Relationships Australia or Centacare. And after weeks of individual sessions - and perhaps some joint ones - the adults' therapist offers sessions for the children. If both parents agree, the children are assigned a separate child therapy specialist for one or two private sessions. The child specialist's role is to gently pry open a window on the children's feelings and their needs, and then to report back to the parents in a way that avoids making them feel guilty.

"It's astonishing that otherwise lovely, sane parents who have divorced and are in conflict have absolutely no idea what their children are going through," said Clive Price, the executive director of Unifam Counselling and Mediation. "When they get the feedback, it's like scales falling off their eyes."

Hearing the child's perspective from a third party is aimed at breaking down the impasse between parents and shifting them from hostility to a softer space, he says. It is hard to see a child's drawing of herself crying in a corner and not be moved to change.

For many children, the consultation is the first time they have been able to unburden themselves. "Some just sit and sob for an hour," says Megan Solomon, the manager of clinical programs at Unifam. "One child went skipping down the street after the consultation. Some say 'Please don't tell mum and dad X,Y,Z because they'll be upset.' But most of the time children want their parents to know how they feel."

The crucial difference with child-inclusive mediation is that parents hear the stories of their own children. They are told what the children most wish for in life - and it is never a trip to Disneyland. The usual mediation involves couples only; parents hear about the needs of children in general. The children are not interviewed. Between the generic child and theirs lies all the difference.

A major study is about to be delivered to the Federal Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, which gives compelling evidence of the success of child-inclusive mediation compared to the couple-only kind.

Jennifer McIntosh, a family therapist specialist, has tracked 183 families, split between those who underwent child-inclusive mediation and those who undertook couple mediation, through Relationships Australia.

Four years on, the evidence shows the child-inclusive couples enjoy a significantly less acrimonious relationship than the other parents, and are much less likely to be involved in litigation. The children report feeling less stress. Now in their early teens, the children from the child-inclusive group are misbehaving significantly less than the other group, and are happier with their living arrangements.

And the fathers who underwent child-inclusive mediation enjoy a better relationship with their children. Though many of these dads initially had less time with their children, they have ended up with more time than the other fathers by the end of the four years.

Explaining the power of the method, Dr McIntosh says: "A child's truth is a great leveller." But because of the skill level required of the therapists and the cost - two therapists a family instead of one - it is still not widely available.

When Richard and Glenda turned up for therapeutic mediation at Unifam, they told, as so many couples do, markedly different stories of their marriage and divorce.

Glenda, 35, who is a disability carer in group homes, was totally devastated when Richard announced four years into their marriage that he did not love her and wanted to leave. At the time they had a baby and she was pregnant again. According to Glenda, her husband had been having an affair.

Richard, 38, a paramedic, says the affair began after he left. The couple was fighting so much he couldn't stand the thought of children being raised in such an unhappy family. "We had married young and I was immature," he said. By the time he left - and there is disagreement over exactly when - the baby was about six months and the older child about 18 months. As both he and Glenda were shift workers, he felt he had cared for them equally from birth, and right from the start of the separation insisted on equal time.

For the next eight years they fought over the children, with Richard pressing for 50/50 time, and Glenda worried about the disruption the arrangement would bring to such young children. After the shock of the separation, it took Glenda about three years to get on her feet, and then to accept she did not love her husband or want him back. Richard remarried and had three children with his new partner. Eventually, after defending three court actions that cost her $54,000, Glenda agreed to the children going to their father four nights a week every alternate week. But Richard launched a fourth court action, feeling thwarted in his phone contacts, and wanting more time.

It was at this point, about two years ago, that the Family Court sent them to Unifam for therapeutic mediation. "I used to be scared to ring Richard, I'd be sick to the stomach," Glenda said. "All I wanted was to be able to communicate with him, not to dread getting on the phone, not be yelled at and abused, and not to be taken back to court."

Richard said: "The only thing I have ever been interested in is spending more time with my children and Glenda has been fighting that the whole time. I've been very frustrated and, yes, there was some anger there. Every now and then I'd blow up at their mother when I was picking the kids up or dropping them off."

What the two could agree on was that their son was in trouble - bedwetting, misbehaving at school and becoming defiant.

After weeks of individual sessions with the same therapist, the two had made enough progress to be brought together. Richard had realised his yelling caused his ex-wife to shut down. And Glenda had learnt new approaches to communication so that she would not withdraw, give in and then suffer anger and resentment. At the point when Richard and Glenda were considered calm enough to be able to hear what their children might say, they were offered a child consultant.

Jacquie Tulloch, a trained child therapist, describes the two children as "really lovely kids" who wanted to be close to both parents. The daughter was travelling well enough. But the son had a deep longing for a better relationship with his dad, and for the fighting to stop, she said. His father's remarriage and the new family had made the boy feel insecure. In a drawing to represent the relative importance of family members, he put his stepmother last behind an array of cousins, aunts and uncles. Asked what he would do with a magic wand, he said he would use it to bring his parents back together. "Part of him longed for the intact normal family," Tulloch says. "I felt these children were answering from the heart."

It is hard, sometimes hurtful, for parents to hear the messages a child consultant brings. Conveying the children's account in a respectful way is the most difficult part of the work. "Sometimes the parents realise they'd been fighting over whether it's four days or five days with the children," Solomon says, "when . the big issue (for the children) is around belonging in a new stepfamily. Then parents realise 'this is what we should be focusing on.' "

When Glenda heard the child consultant's report, "It brought tears to my eyes", she said. "Both said they didn't like us fighting. They felt torn between us and didn't want to upset either of us. They were telling their father one thing and me another. All I wanted was to have happy children."

Richard said: "It brought it home to roost. It had more impact coming from the consultant than if the kids had told us. It's coming from an adult, skilled in the field. But it was their voice being heard."

A second session with the child consultant asked them if the children wanted to spend two extra nights at their father's house. The boy was definite he only wanted one.

In the time since the consultations, the father and son have become closer, the boy has a happy relationship with his stepmother, and the parents are getting on much better.

"There's a definite improvement in our relationship," Richard says.

The children also had group counselling with other children in their situation.

Though the results of the four-year study are encouraging, Dr McIntosh is wary of rolling the process out too fast, especially to parents who are not ready. "It can do further damage to the children by raising their hopes of change," she said.

But for many families, hearing what the children really feel is making all the difference.

*Identities have been changed to comply with the Family Law Act.

Breaking up is hard to do

• Almost 48,000 divorces were granted in 2007 compared with 51,375 in 2006.


• 48 per cent of divorces in 2007 involved couples with children aged under 18.


• The median length of marriage to separation is 8.9 years (2007) compared with 7.3 years in 1988.


• Among separated parents 55 per cent of fathers and 37 per cent of mothers say things have not worked out fairly.

16 March 2009
The Daily Telegraph

Justice Peter Murphy says weekend parenting 'different' to daily grind as sisters go to court
By Janet Fife-Yeomans

A JUDGE has slammed two sisters for "holding a gun" to the head of the court - and the heads of their parents - in a bizarre custody case.

The outburst highlights the plight of many divorced parents, who guide their children through the drudgery and stress of Monday to Friday - only to see them vanish for weekend good times with the other parent.

Justice Peter Murphy spoke after the teenagers took their case to the Family Court in a bid to leave their mother to live with their wealthy father on the Gold Coast.

The girls, aged 14 and 15, have been brought up almost solely by their mum since their parents split up 10 years ago.

But their dad, a successful businessman, has recently remarried and settled with his new wife on a Gold Coast property, and the sisters want to join him, the court has been told.

It is an unusual case that is being closely watched by family law experts as the court has to weigh up the wishes of the children with what is in their best interests, the Daily Telegraph reports.

The sisters said it was hard living with their mum who swore, was depressed, yelled, treated them like children and did not allow them the independence they would get with their dad. They even said they felt easier talking about personal issues with their father's new wife than with their mother.

But Justice Murphy accused them of "holding a gun" to the head of the court and the heads of their parents after he heard that they had refused to go home.

"It is very different, it seems to me, parenting children during holiday or weekend time than it is parenting children during week-to-week time when they are involved in their week-to-week activities including school," he said.

"It seems clear that the father has spent very little, if any, day-to-day, week-to-week time with his young children and later adolescent children, attending to the sorts of duties and responsibilities that are highly likely to cause stress within any family household."

However he acknowledged that the girls loved their dad whose business activities had been "clearly extensive and time consuming" for the past 10 years.

"I find it hardly surprising that they would want to spend time at his home with him and his new wife," Justice Murphy said. "It offers a number of enticing and exciting possibilities for them and if there is tension in the mother's household, it is hardly surprising that they would express the view that they have."

While the case has yet to be heard in full, the judge said that in the interim the sisters had to go home to their mother, while still being able to see their father.

Family law expert Michael Taussig QC said it was an unusual case and the judge had handled a complex decision very fairly.

"If a 14-year-old and a 15-year-old have strong and mature views then they are usually listened to by the court but as this is an interim hearing pending a full trial then the status quo has been maintained," he said.

14 March 2009
The Daily Examiner

Inequality in men's health
Comment Graham Orams

Gee I'd like a dollar for every time Iv'e written about men's issues being given a lower priority by governments. Today's page one story is just another example of that.

It's not enough that Federal Governments have allowed much more public money to be ploughed into research into women's diseases, now they don't even see the issue of men's suicide as important enough to fund grass-roots organisations working tirelessly to help.

Dads in Distress (DIDS) was founded to help men-many at the point of suicide-to emerge from the other side of a traumatic experience intact.

Unfortunately for us blokes, men are an easy target for governments to withdraw or withhold funding because they know we're less likely to jump up and down about it.

I congratulate women's groups on being so organised and successful. They get loud, get heard and get results.

However, that doesn't excuse our governments for bowing to pressure when they should instead be using some integrity.

I advocate passionately for men's issues because so few do. Tony Miller and our local DIDS coordinator Paul Dwyer know how important it is for men to take some inspiration from women and get off their bums and get heard too.

I am disgusted at the way our political system often handles important men's issues. Our politicians need to begin to treat issues like health with genuine equality.

'Our governments should instead be using some integrity'

Graham Orams Daily Examiner

14 March 2009
The Daily Examiner (Grafton)

Men's help group loses funding

Suicide rates in the Clarence Valley could rise because of a Federal Government decision not to continue funding a men's suicide prevention group.

Dads in Distress (DIDS) was founded nine years ago by Coffs Harbour man Tony Miller to help guide men through traumatic experiences. In 2001, Grafton became just the second city in NSW to start a DIDS support group.

Local co-ordinators have run DIDS support group meetings in an effort to help Clarence Valley men deal with any type of stressful situation that may lead to suicide or depression.

Mr Miller said four full-time staff will finish up in eight weeks and many DIDS programs will simply wind up.

"The thing that amazes me is that the Government has announced a national men's health policy and here's a group that works to prevent male suicide and they're just letting it go," he said.

"Yet 69,000 people living overseas are about to receive the Government's economic stimulus package bonus payment."

Mr Miller said DIDS was working so well that even organisations such as Lifeline and Mensline were referring men.

"We offer a safe place for blokes to come and express their grief. They often don't know who to go to for help," he said. "The bottom line is that we try to keep these men alive because sometimes they're at the end of their tether."

One of several Grafton men helped by DIDS is John (surname withheld). John approached DIDS for help after separating from his partner and being told she would restrict access to his son.

"They knew the right people to contact and help me keep contact with my son," John said.

"They helped me keep a calm head and even went along to the Family Court with me."

John said it was because of the support of DIDS he eventually gained shared custody of his son.

13 March 2009
ABC News

Men's health service 'faces closure without funds'

A Coffs Harbour based men's suicide prevention group says it will close within months if funding is not recommitted.

Dads In Distress provides assistance for men dealing with the trauma of divorce or separation and operates a 1300 telephone crisis line.

The group's founder, Tony Miller, says it seems strange the Federal Government has not announced a national men's health policy yet and a national suicide prevention organisation is about to close.

He says there are very few services left for men.

"We operate out of Melbourne ... Sydney ... and we operate on the north coast region - they're all gone," Mr Miller said.

"We've put around four people off that are full-time and a number of part-time people.

"We've still got volunteers around the country and we still run groups around the country, but as far as backup and support to those groups and volunteers, it's all ended - it's over."

12 March 2009
The Sydney Morning Herald

Cost of kids not so high after all
By Adele Horin

The cost of raising children is not nearly as high as parents have been led to believe, a study reveals. Far from a child costing $10,000 a year, as previous research indicated, the price is more like $1300.

Michael Dockery, an associate professor in the school of economics and finance at the Curtin University of Technology, says children may even enhance their parents' wealth.

"People now believe they'll be millions of dollars out of pocket if they have children," he said. "It's nonsense."

If children were a "cost", parents would end up less wealthy than comparable couples without children. But his study, based on 3168 couples, found this was not the case. When the net wealth of the parents and the child-free was compared - housing, shares, superannuation and savings - the parents were only marginally worse off, suggesting a child "cost" only $1300 a year.

When wealth accumulation between 2002-06 was considered, couples with children were a little better off.

Dr Dockery said couples with children were more likely to be home-owners and to have a bigger house.

Previous Australian studies have shown that a typical family will spend $537,000 on raising two children from birth to 21. Dr Dockery claims the cost is more like $55,000.

Dr Dockery disputes the logic of seeing children as a cost. The price people were prepared to pay for fertility treatments showed children were regarded as a "very large net benefit".

He also takes issue with studies that used the amount of money parents spend on children to determine their cost. "There seems little justification for considering expenditure on children to be a measure of their cost, any more than going to a restaurant can be considered a cost to the patrons." Restaurant-goers saw their night out as a benefit, not a burden.

As well, when couples chose to have children they understood they would have to switch their expenditure from dining out to nappies and child care.

"They value having the children more than the lifestyle," he said. "To argue they are worse off makes no sense."

Dr Dockery cautioned against using his research to calculate child support because the situation for sole parents was different. But he said the family payments system had helped make children "cost-neutral" and the emphasis on benefits for "working families" needed to be changed to help all people.

12 March 2009
The Herald

Men's vote carries their day
By Michelle Harris

A MOTION for Maitland City Council to give equal support to International Men's and Women's Days has provoked a minor battle of the sexes with the city's two female councillors voting against the proposal.

Cr Philip Penfold put the motion to a council meeting on Tuesday, calling for the council to support International Men's Day to an extent similar to the support for International Women's Day, which Cr Penfold said cost the council about $1500.

Cr Penfold said he was concerned that challenges facing men, such as serious health conditions, were not as well-promoted as those faced by women.

He argued the council's support of the day in Maitland, on or about November 19, would help to address the imbalance.

Cr Lisa Tierney, with the backing of Cr Loretta Baker, argued support was warranted to help tackle matters such as male suicide rates but that Cr Penfold's motion was premature and should be deferred for a year.

She said the women's day events in Maitland were mostly the result of the groundwork of women's community groups rather than the council's efforts.

Similar work would need to first be fostered within the community for the men's day.

Women faced different social challenges to men.

"Being equal isn't about giving everyone the same thing, it's about levelling the playing field," Cr Tierney told the meeting.

Cr Steve Procter said that while "my wife reckons every day is men's day", the council should be able to make what was "not a difficult decision" to support men as well.

The male councillors carried the motion.

12 March 2009
WA Today

The Verdict
with Patti Chong

Practise a little restraint

Not a day goes by when my advice isn't sought on restraining orders, which in recent years seem to have popped up like mushrooms after a heavy rain.

The Restraining Orders Act was first enacted in 1997. The legislative intent was to restrain conduct, particularly in the domestic home front, and protect women from domestic violence.

While decision makers have to err on the side of caution, the proliferation of applications by people to frustrate, intimidate and use restraining orders not to seek protection from violence but as a Damocles Sword in a volatile relationship is of concern, not only to the person restrained but to others who have to advise and make the orders.

An interim order is made in the absence of the person bound by the order, and allegations cannot be tested until a final order hearing.

It is not uncommon that during or shortly after a fight, when tempers are frayed and egos hurt, an aggrieved person seeks a restraining order, first by telephone, followed by an interim court order.

However, it is also not uncommon for an applicant to breach the order by contacting or reconciling with the person bound by the order. But it is the person bound by the order who is guilty of the breach, even though the contact was initiated by the applicant.

In this sort of situation, the person bound by the order should vary or cancel the order to avoid being breached, but most people are unaware of this.

The legislation provides for Misconduct Restraining Orders, which in my opinion are being abused by applicants, particularly in commercial disputes.

It is not uncommon for business partners to fall out or proprietors of businesses in the same shopping centre to have healthy competition. But it is an abuse of the system when one party seeks a misconduct restraining order simply to stifle a competitor.

Such orders can restrain a person from being on or near a specified premises, locality or place. A misconduct restraining order may also restrain a person from entering or remaining in a place, or restrict the person's access to a place, even if the person has a legal or equitable right to be at the place.

Commercial disputes or fallouts from business dealings have no place in this legislation and should not occupy judicial resources.

If people in commerce cannot manage their differences arising out of business dealings, then they should get out of business or commence proceedings to resolve the commercial dispute. They should not resort to restraining the conduct of the person, even on an interim basis.

It stains the character of the person bound by the interim order until such an order can be determined at a final order hearing, and cast aspersions which may be irreparable.

What does it say about the applicant's business ethics, I wonder?

11 March 2009
The Australian

Simple wills don't suit our complex lives
By James Dunn

Making a will used to involve a special trip to the family solicitor for the half of the Australian population that had done it.

But increasingly the will is seen as an integral part of a person's financial planning and is made - and maintained - as part of that process. Estate planning has become a fully specialised advice area within a financial planning practice. Most accredited financial planners have at least done a course of study on estate planning and a practice usually has a specialist estate planner.

Mike Fitzpatrick, principal of Clarendene Estate Planning, says the availability of specialised estate planning advice is not before time, given two simultaneous but conflicting developments. On the one hand, there is the growing national wealth kitty; on the other, the growing divorce rate.

"Over the last generation, Australians' personal wealth has grown enormously," Fitzpatrick says. "There is about $2 trillion that will change hands over the next 20 years. But the problem from an estate planning point of view is that the divorce rate is so high, and we have blended and split families all over the place. This fact complicates estate planning hugely."

Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show there were 109,323 marriages in Australia and 52,400 divorces in 2005. In 18 per cent of marriages, the marriage was the first for only one partner. In 14 per cent of marriages, both partners had been previously married.

"These days, almost 50 per cent of marriages end in divorce," says Rob Monahan, senior estate planner at Australian Executor Trustees. "Given the growth in wealth, the high divorce rate has really become a huge driver in estate planning. People want to be able to keep assets within nuclear families.

"Every presentation I give, I ask: 'Who here has had a relationship breakdown in their family?' and all the hands go up. Then I ask: 'Who would be happy for their inheritance not to pass on to their son or daughter but to the former in-law?', and they're shocked that's even a possibility, but it is," Monahan says.

With second marriages so common, the complications mount up, Fitzpatrick says. "The real problem that these people grapple with is, 'How do I look after my second spouse and any children we have but have some money left over for my kids from my first marriage?', and that's assuming that they've finalised all of their family law issues with their first spouse. And now, if you've got a mistress on the side, she can come in and stand in line.

"It shocks people that there are so many potential problems."

Phillip McGowan, partner at de Groots Wills & Estate Lawyers, cites the high-profile example of motor-racing legend Peter Brock. After Brock died during a rally in September 2006, his girlfriend, his former wife of 28 years and their three children were left with competing claims to his estate, set out in three wills.

Last October, the Victorian Supreme Court ruled that Brock's latest will, prepared by his personal assistant in 2006, was invalid because it was not signed. That will divided his estate between his girlfriend and his children.

Instead, the court ruled that the second will, prepared by Brock and his ex-wife with the help of a will kit in 2003, was valid. This will left everything to the children but failed to state how the assets would be distributed.

"With greater wealth and more complex personal circumstances, there is an upsurge in will disputes, with family members applying to the courts to argue that wills are invalid or that he or she should receive a greater share of the deceased's assets," McGowan says. "From a handful of cases being litigated in the courts 20 years ago, hundreds of these cases now pass through the court system. A small scale dispute over an estate may result in legal costs in excess of $100,000, often paid from the estate assets before the beneficiaries get their share."

Monahan says tax is another complicating factor in estate planning.

"The vast majority of people who have a will have just a simple will, which simply says: 'These are my beneficiaries, this is how my assets are distributed.' You can get those from a newsagent," Monahan says.

"That's better than having no will, but when people really sit down and look at passing on their assets, you usually find that simple doesn't do the job, mainly because of tax. You're not just passing on assets in a will, you can pass on liabilities as well. People fairly quickly realise that they are going to have to make inheriting their assets as tax-effective for their beneficiaries as possible. That is not achievable with a simple will."

Although Australia has not had death duties for three decades, it has a capital gains tax regime that Monahan describes as a "sleeping death duty".

"For instance, people might have a share portfolio or an investment property. When they die, (capital gains tax) on those assets doesn't have to be paid at that stage, but when the beneficiary sells that asset the CGT will be payable. Again, managing that problem is beyond a simple will."

Monahan says the most effective tool for making a will as tax-effective as possible, and ensuring that assets go to the chosen beneficiaries, is a discretionary testamentary trust, a trust created within a person's will that takes effect when that person dies. A testamentary trust may be created using specified assets, a designated portion of your estate or the entire remaining balance of your estate. Multiple testamentary trusts may be created by the one will.

Steven Carroll, director and head of financial planning at boutique advisory firm Carroll, Pike & Piercy, says a testamentary trust has two main attributes: it protects assets and it is highly tax-effective.

"Assets in a testamentary trust are protected from litigation, bankruptcy and divorce," Carroll says.

"That's the asset protection side of it, in the event of the beneficiaries being sued or going through a divorce. The other side of the coin is as far as income is concerned, you can spread the distribution of income out among the family. And if you have a couple of young children or grandchildren it's particularly tax-effective because they receive the income on adult marginal tax rates. The beneficiaries can decide how the capital gain is going to be distributed, then use that to minimise their tax."

As Australians' personal wealth grew in the past decade, more people found they were leaving legacies to their children that would create tax problems for them, so the testamentary trust became more widespread.

"When you create a will that's got testamentary trusts in it, it's only a choice that you're giving the children to go down that route," Carroll says. "They can, if they want to, turn their part of the inheritance into an immediately distributable estate and simply take the cash and run. They could do that to pay off debt or whatever they wanted to do.

"Alternatively, they might take a hybrid view and say 'look, give me part of the cash. I'm due to receive $1million out of mum and dad's estate; I'd like to take $400,000 and pay off my mortgage because it's not tax-deductible and it's a burden on the cash flow, and I'd like the other $600,000 to stay in the testamentary trust so that I can educate my own kids tax-effectively, with the income coming out at the end of the day."

He says the idea is not to lock the money into a testamentary trust.

"You're likely to have beneficiaries at different stages of their financial lives. Some will take money and leave a bit in there; some will take the whole lot and pay off a mortgage, or blow it; and the other might want to leave it all in there. It's protected while it's in there, but once they take it out into their own name, it's open to the vagaries of real life."

Arguably every will should contain a testamentary trust, says Carroll. "They cost $1500-$2000 to set up, whereas an immediately distributable will might only cost between $400 to set up. But they're definitely worth having in there to at least give the beneficiaries the option of using them."

Peter Whitehead, public trustee for NSW, says education is an area where testamentary trusts are commonly used. "Even where one of the parents is still alive, you often see a testamentary trust set up for the children's education because, being taxed at adult rates, the first $6000 each year will be tax-free," Whitehead says.

"Whereas anything that the surviving spouse might spend on education will be after-tax dollars, using a testamentary trust means that you can have at least $6000 spent per child from income that's not taxable. We often see grandparents setting up testamentary trusts for their grandchildren for this reason because of the way that it will be tax-effective to support those children compared with the parents themselves inheriting and having to spend after-tax dollars on the kids."

Phillip Bailey, a solicitor and estate planner with Dixon Advisory in Canberra, says a testamentary trust should be at least an option in a will.

"You've almost got two phases in estate planning," Bailey says. "If the beneficiary is a minor, you're looking at protecting the beneficiary from themselves. If an 18-year-old inherits $1million, they're highly likely to blow it up. So you would lock that up in a mandatory and protective trust, and then at 25 it morphs into a fully flexible discretionary testamentary trust."

Bailey says he has included an optional testamentary trust in all wills since changes made to superannuation rules in 2007. "Before 2007, you could actually pass on your superannuation in the form of an income stream to an adult non-dependent child. The widow could die knowing that her children would simply continue her allocated pension. After July 2007 that (was no longer) possible and adult non-dependent children had to take lump sums. If you are, say, 30 and your parents die, you could suddenly get this massive chunk of super money.

"Say one person wants to use it to buy their principal residence and, fair enough, they don't really need a testamentary trust because they're just going to live in the house.

"But another person might want to invest the money and generate income from it, and they will find the testamentary very handy."

Bailey says it does not matter if the first person inherits $1 million and the second inherits $100,000; whether they need a testamentary trust depends on their circumstances, not the amount. "It's just a good option tohave available to a beneficiaries," he says. "They can decide if they want to use it and it's billed as a testamentary expense."

05 March 2009
Minister for Human Services
Senator Joe Ludwig
Media Release

New trial to reduce conflict between separated parents

Minister for Human Services, Senator Joe Ludwig, has announced plans for a new trial to help separated parents resolve disputes around care.

Speaking at the Fifth Annual Family Law Conference in Melbourne today, Senator Ludwig said the trial would provide crucial early intervention and prevention strategies for separated families.

"Family separation is difficult for everyone involved, particularly deciding which parent has care of the children and when," Senator Ludwig said.

"In the past six months, the CSA made about 111,000 care decisions - 18,500 decisions a month - and while most decisions are straightforward and not disputed, approximately 700 decisions each month are considered 'contentious' or 'complex' because parents cannot agree."

"The Child Support Agency will soon begin a pilot to refer parents with a disputed care matter to a Family Relationship Centre for early intervention and mediation."

"Separated parents would work with a qualified family dispute practitioner to develop a sustainable, workable parenting plan that's best for the children."

"It means parents won't have to go through the courts and get solicitors involved, and the process can help them to work together for the benefit of their kids."

Senator Ludwig today said the Government would also focus on strategies to identify and support families at risk of separation or experiencing violence or abuse.

"The various organisations within the family law system need to work together to share information about high risk families," he said.

"By identifying high risk cases, we can help the families who could benefit from investment in early intervention."

"While separation is unfortunately a fact of life, we can do more to provide families with the support they need, when they need it, before relationship breakdown becomes their only option."

Speech: See related speech
www.mhs.gov.au/media/speeches/090305-family-law-conference.html

17 February - 04 March 2009
Men's Health Australia

National Men's Health Policy Consultation Forums Announced

The Australian Government has announced the dates for community consultation forums in Tasmania, Sydney and Canberra for its National Men's Health Policy. We encourage you to circulate this information widely and attend the forum closest to you to let your views about men's health issues be heard.

Dates and venues are below. To RSVP to any of the forums, please contact
National.Mens.Health.Policy@health.gov.au
or call 02 6289 6859. Registration is free.

For more information go to
www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/phd-mens-forums

Canberra forum
Date: Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Time: 6pm-8pm, venue open from 5pm for light refreshments and registration
Venue: Aegean Room, Hellenic Club, Matilda Street, WODEN
RSVP: Monday, 16 February 2009

Launceston forum
Date: Wednesday, 18 February 2009
Time: 6pm-8pm, venue open from 5pm for light refreshments and registration
Venue: Tram Room 29, Inveresk Rail Yards, 4 Invermay Rd MOWBRAY
RSVP: Monday, 16 February 2009

Hobart forum
Date: Thursday, 19 February 2009
Time: 6pm-8pm, venue open from 5pm for light refreshments and registration
Venue: Goulburn Room, Mecure Hotel, 156 Bathurst St HOBART
RSVP: Monday, 16 February 2009

Sydney forum
Date: Wednesday, 4 March 2009
Time: 6pm-8pm, venue open from 5pm for light refreshments and registration
Venue: Bankstown Sports Event Centre (Near Train Station), 8 Greenfield Pde BANKSTOWN
RSVP: Monday, 2 March 2009

02 March 2009
The Age

Men urged to make sperm will
By Nick Miller

Increasing numbers of women are asking hospitals to harvest the sperm of their dead or dying partner for IVF.

Experts have called for young men to make special wills recording their consent (or otherwise) for the use of their sperm if they die unexpectedly.

Michael Buist, director of intensive care at Dandenong Hospital, said requests for sperm harvesting were becoming more frequent.

"When I was first confronted with it, I thought 'this is right out of left field, I have got no idea (what to do)'," Associate Professor Buist said. "It's certainly something we have seen a bit more of recently. For people who practise in (intensive care or hospital emergency departments) it's a request that takes most people by surprise."

He is co-author of a paper in the latest Medical Journal of Australia examining the issue.

The paper found a glaring paradox in Victorian law. In many circumstances sperm may be legally harvested; for instance, by consent of the coroner in case of death, or through consent of next of kin if a patient is unconscious.

But harvested sperm cannot lawfully be used in IVF in Victoria without the explicit written consent of the man. The partner must take it to another state in which implied consent is enough.

Co-author Sarah Middleton, a lecturer at the Monash University Law Faculty, said the safest option was to insist on written consent.

Dr Middleton said sperm donation was different from organ donation. In organ donation, doctors could rely on the word of a family member about the deceased's wishes.

But in sperm donation, the person giving evidence of consent was likely to be the woman wanting access to the sperm, she said. "She may have a conflict of interest. It's about the man's reproductive rights, and I think they should survive your death."

She said the idea of taking something from a corpse to create new life was a difficult issue. "It would be good if people were encouraged to record their wishes - (but) people in this reproductive age group aren't usually going to make their intentions clear in writing."

Others have challenged the role of consent in posthumous reproduction.

In the Journal of Law and Medicine last year, Sarah Jones, of the University of Otago, wrote in a paper consent should be considered along with a fuller picture including the values of the sperm donor, the future prospects of the child and the needs and motivations of the mother.

"The interests of deceased and permanently unconscious patients are notoriously difficult to ascertain," the paper said.

Another MJA paper reported that women were freezing their eggs as a form of insurance against their decline in fertility.

The report by the Queensland Fertility Group found success rates with thawed eggs were now close to fresh IVF.

The authors said egg freezing was still an expensive and not always reliable option.

02 March 2009
The Age

Abducted children to stay
By Carol Nader

A Melbourne woman who abducted her two young children from Greece and brought them to Australia has been told by the Family Court that she does not have to return them to her Greek husband.

The woman had been living in Greece with her husband and children and had come to Australia for medical treatment after being injured through repeated domestic violence. She decided to stay permanently, feeling it was unsafe to return.

Although the woman acted unlawfully, the Family Court in a rare ruling found that she did not have to return the children to Greece on the grounds that there was a "grave risk" they would be exposed to harm.

The woman was born in Australia and moved to Greece as an adult. She married a Greek man 10 years ago, and their two children were born and raised in Greece. No one involved in the case can be identified for legal reasons.

A Family Court spokeswoman has confirmed that the ruling was very rare.

The woman's lawyer, Sally Nicholes, told The Age her client had been seriously injured by her husband's repeated violence. He denies ever being violent to her or the children.

She returned to Australia with the children for a temporary visit in late 2007 and says that she told her husband of her intentions, but he claims no knowledge of the plan.

A few weeks after they arrived in Australia, he lodged an application under the Hague Convention for the children to be returned to Greece. The convention aims to stop parents moving children from one country to another without the other parent's consent, and to ensure those wrongfully retained are returned home.

Usually the Family Court would have ordered that the children be returned to Greece, as required by the Hague Convention. But the court exercised its discretion against making the order after being presented with evidence from a Greek legal expert that police in Greece did not adequately protect domestic violence victims.

The court also took into account that the woman may have been imprisoned for breaching Greek laws if she returned.

An Australian doctor said she had developed "positional vertigo" as a result of repeated beatings to her head - a medical condition characterised by sudden episodes of vertigo and nausea.

"We argued that if she got one more blow to the head of the same force, she would die," Ms Nicholes said. "The doctor's evidence was that her injuries were consistent with being beaten to the back of the head, which is what she alleged."

What makes the woman's case rare - and where other women in similar circumstances claiming domestic violence have failed in court - is that she successfully argued that in Greece she would not be adequately protected against domestic violence.

Ms Nicholes said the woman claimed that she had gone to Greek police for help, but they said they could do nothing to help apart from speak to her husband. "She went to the police, and each time they didn't actually assist her," she said.

The Family Court made the order before Christmas, but it had not been publicised because of the prospect of an appeal. But that appeal has not been lodged.

Former Family Court chief justice Alastair Nicholson said the case was rare because it was difficult to argue that countries with similar legal systems could not protect people from domestic violence.

"The assumption is usually that the country will deal with what's complained of," he said. "However, where you have direct evidence that that's not the case, then the interpretation of the convention is certainly open."

Mr Nicholson said the Hague Convention did have discretion when it came to "grave risk", but the question was how that risk was interpreted. "It's a very unusual case and I think in most cases that wouldn't apply, but by the sound of it, it seems like a proper result," he said.

The woman and her children are now living in Melbourne.

01 March 2009
Sunday Herald Sun (Melbourne)

Father jailed for sending birthday card to daughter
By Laurie Nowell

A Melbourne father of three has been jailed for sending a birthday card to his daughter.

The man "Mick" - who cannot be identified for legal reasons - was locked up in a suburban police station for seven nights and spent another in the tough Melbourne Custody Centre.

He says he was surrounded by drug addicts and people charged with violent offences during his ordeal last month.

Mick claims he is a victim of a family law system that is biased against fathers.

"I was jailed for nine days and eight nights for sending my 11-year-old daughter a birthday card," he said.

"Apparently I broke an intervention order.

"It's ludicrous and it breaks your heart."

The 51-year-old is estranged from his wife and claims she has brought a series of intervention orders against him, banning him from contact with his children, without any evidence.

"Until my wife divorced me I was a legally unimpeachable citizen - now I'm being treated like a criminal just because I want some contact with my kids," Mick said yesterday.

"And that contact was ended arbitrarily without even a hearing or the presentation of evidence.

"In a court of law, if you are accused of something you are supposed to have the ability to cross examine your accusers and call witnesses.

"In the secret chambers of the Family Court you are not guaranteed that at all."

Mick says the experience has cost him $20,000 and his career as a writer.

"It's a plundering and looting exercise on the part of lawyers involved in this and there are no juries or scrutiny by media to keep them accountable," he said.

The Sunday Herald Sun was denied access to documents relating to Mick's case and lawyers for his estranged wife declined to be interviewed.

Historian and academic Prof John Hirst this week called for an overhaul of family law.

"The court is not enforcing its decisions, the costs of going to court are onerous and there is little public accountability," he said.

01 March 2009
The Courier Mail

With weddings, sky's still the limit
By Laura Stead

As the strain of belt tightening can be heard around the globe, the wedding industry hopes to be less affected in 2009.

With the average Australian wedding budget reportedly looming in the ballpark of $50,000, the argument that it's "just one day" will likely be met by the average bride-to-be with a glare not befitting of a woman about to walk down the aisle in white.

"At the end of the day, most girls have been thinking about this for a very long time and the ball starts rolling and one thing leads to another," says First Class Wedding and Events director Lisa Clayton.

"Even when there's a wedding planner you get wrapped up in it and sometimes it blows out and they have a reality check.

"I know I've had to do a quote five times for a couple because they have what they envisaged but then the reality comes."

There are several schools of thought as to how weddings are getting more expensive while the options are getting greater, which, logically, should lead to more competitive pricing.

One theory is having to keep up with the Joneses.

Friendship groups tend to have intensive periods of marrying-off and it just won't do to be outdone by your buddies at the altar.

Another is a perceived role reversal with the woman sometimes earning as much if not more than her husband-to-be, and being able to afford a more traditional, lavish wedding.

Budget blues

Pilates instructor Sarah Federicks is due to marry her rigger fiance Budhi Iriks in May 2010 and, firmly in the throes of prenuptial preparation, has already met with some harsh budget reality.

Looking at a guest list of about 80 but in a stand-out venue such as the Gallery of Modern Art and a dress by Darb Bridal Couture designer Brad Webb, Sarah says her initial estimates were overshot by at least $10,000.

"We were looking at $15,000 but that was what our parents were talking about. That was what they planned to give us.

"That's when Budhi and I were like 'we're going to knuckle down and save'. Now it would probably be about $25,000," she says.

"It is hard because when you first jump into it I bought so many magazines it wasn't funny.

"You get very excited.

"It's only going to be a small wedding but I just want to create wonderful, beautiful memories of that day, just to consolidate our feelings for one another."

The bride hopes her beautiful memories will be captured by celebrated Brisbane photographer Marcus Bell of Studio Impressions as well as a portable on-site photo booth at the reception.

Picture perfect

Photographs are normally among the highest priorities at a wedding, says W. Edding & Co director Jodie Randolph-Birch, and it's up to the couple to decide how far they want to go with the myriad add-ons available.

"You ask people where they would prefer the money to be spent. Most would say photography, followed by the food, entertainment and the dress. Usually they just want their guests to have a great time," she says.

"With photographers there is a massive price range but for the better ones in Brisbane, once you get your album back you've spent $10,000, but it just depends how important your photography is to you.

"Say the photography is really important to the couple, they're putting the money into that and cutting down on things like the bon bons (bombonieres) or they'll have a DJ instead of a live band."

Party flavour

If the budget extends, however, the wedding can be the party of the year for your guests.

"We've done a couple of weddings where we've had cigar girls.

"They're unique to us and they've got 1940s costumes and cigars and chocolate or cigars and cognac," Randolph-Birch says.

"Releasing butterflies at sunset is also coming back but you have to have a lot of butterflies to get maximum effect.

"Then we've had the Cirque du Soleil performers at a couple of weddings doing small shows.

"We took a couple of them out to Roma with a big chandelier and everything.

"We've quoted to have David Campbell at a wedding and the Rogue Traders. Sometimes people want to spend a lot of money on entertainment, like $50,000, which is huge fun because the guests feel completely flattered.

"I think people are still spending money even though apparently there's no money around, but I guess people are just a bit more discerning about where the money goes."

Apart from the novelty aspect, some marrying couples place great significance in ceremonial inclusions such as the releasing of doves, says Celebration Doves' Lesley Perkins.

Flight of fancy

For $220, Celebration Doves will have Perkins set up a cage outside the church or adjacent to the ceremony and release two doves at a chosen time to signify a new life for the couple.

"I have had a 100-dove release, it was huge, and it was too much in a way I think. Often less is best," she says.

The possibilities are endless.

"There's the bubble machines that fire up to create a romantic, yet soapy, haze for the newlyweds' entry, the chocolate fountain to shower your reception guests with significant sugar to justify their long haul through the big day, reception-based babysitters to look after the younger guests, even indoor fireworks that can light up your bridal waltz dance floor or, as favoured by Keith Urban to surprise Nicole Kidman on her 40th birthday, an outdoor display tailored by Waterford local Bob Blore.

"Bridal couples are becoming more and more confused but in saying that, they are trying to outdo each other," Clayton says.

"It's funny, the groom just ends up going 'whatever you want honey', because they know they have to put up with the emotional impact at home."

01 March 2009
The Courier Mail

Don't get married to debt
By Alex Tilbury

DA DA Da Dum.

Before you start choosing bridesmaids' dresses and finding someone who can play Mendelssohn's Wedding March on a pipe organ, give some serious thought to the completely unromantic questions regarding the financial arrangements that need to be made when two people become a serious couple.

People should make sure they understand just what sort of commitment they're making before they marry or enter a de facto arrangement.

This is particularly the case if this is a second marriage or long-term relationship and there are assets you want to make sure go to your children and not be spilt with your new partner in the event of a bust-up.

This is also an important discussion if one of you has any serious debts or liabilities.

Couples should have the money talk before they tie the knot to avoid contracting a bad dose of "sexually transmitted debt", discovering they're financially incompatible or suffering any other serious financial ailment.

Also known as relationship debt, it can linger long after you have gone your separate ways if you do not take the proper precautions.

Look ahead

AMP financial planner Wendy Scarlett says a discussion about finances and attitudes to money is understandably not the first thing on people's minds when a marriage proposal comes their way.

"Love comes first, but people planning to marry also need to make some important financial decisions before walking down the aisle," Scarlett says. "Saying, 'I will' at the altar could lead to a lot more than gaining a life-long partner and, with debt levels across Australia on the rise, people need to make sure vows of love are the only vows they're taking.

"People need to make sure they're not vowing to take on huge debts, a lack of financial security or any other nasty surprises.

"Couples should be clear about what guarantees their partner has entered into - are they guarantor on a friend's car loan or a family member's overdraft and do they have any additional financial obligations to family or friends?"

Couples planning to marry should draw up a new will and make sure their life insurance and superannuation beneficiaries reflect their shared objectives.

Getting hitched to debt

Steven Travis, member advice manager at Sunsuper, says couples need to be very clear about each other's fiscal affairs before they are hitched.

"If you have been shacked up together for more than a few months and your finances are intermingled then you are considered de facto by the courts," he says.

"If one party has gone guarantor for the other in a loan, then you may get a nasty shock once the romance has fizzled as you are liable for that debt.

"The same goes if your partner has a supplementary credit card and you are the account holder, any debts he or she racks up, you are liable for.

"If the couple has bought a property together, it can get messy if one party thought they had an understanding and it comes unstuck when they separate."

That's why Australia's version of a pre-nuptial agreement or a binding financial agreement is a vital document for people to agree on while it's all roses and happiness.

"Bring your bank statements, super statements and all policies to the table and have a discussion about money," says Travis, who admits he offered to buy his wife shares in National Australia Bank instead of an engagement ring.

"It would have been a gift that just kept giving, every year."

Naturally she didn't take up that unromantic offer but married him anyway.

Superannuation is now an asset that can be split after a break-up. This is now a federal right of same-sex couples.

Financial stress

A December 2008 survey by Relationships Australia for Credit Union Australia found 40 per cent of relationship problems were identified as financial stress and insecurities.

But communication difficulties were the major cause of relationship breakdowns.

Relationship debt typically starts when you sign loan documents as a co-borrower or guarantor without realising the significance of what you're signing.

A signature is not just a formality - it's a legally binding contract and if the other person fails to meet their commitment the lender will come looking for you.

Women are particularly vulnerable, often agreeing to sign for a mortgage, a business loan or simply becoming a silent director in their partner's company without being fully aware of the enormous responsibility it brings.

Joint debt is one of the most common traps people fall into.

Guarantor alarm

When it comes to being a guarantor, alarm bells should already be ringing as a guarantor is only sought when the lender assesses the borrower as too risky to justify the loan without assistance. If your partner cannot - or will not - pay back the money, the lender can sue you for the debt.

The key to staying out of relationship debt is to never sign anything without reading the fine print and always seek legal advice - it could be a lot cheaper than winding up with "STD" down the track.

If you do enter into a contract, make sure you keep copies of all the documents in the process. Always check your monthly statements and keep tabs on your own and your partner's finances for any problems.

01 March 2009
The Sunday Telegraph (Sydney)

"For richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish..." Romantic, isn't it? But, as of today, the words are a mere formality.

"With this ring I thee wed, and all my worldly goods I thee endow," says the groom. "For richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, for as long as we both shall live," murmurs the bride.

Romantic, isn't it? But, as of today, the words are a mere formality.

Until now, the bond of marriage has created a special category of relationship.

But today, all de facto relationships of more than two years' duration, be they gay, straight or even a clandestine affair, will have the power of marriage - and that puts all those worldly goods into a new universe of doubt.

Previously, de facto settlements were effectively limited to child support. Now, property, assets and superannuation are all in the mix.

Here's why this matters so much: Australia has a uniquely high-stakes system of property division.

Judges can decide how to allocate all the property and assets owned by two married people - not just those things they acquired during their relationship or own in joint names.

In other words, everything is up for grabs when a married couple separates.

And now, all couples who live together will be effectively considered "married", in the sense that the same legal obligations apply. You don't have to frock up and exchange rings - you just have to shift the boxes up the stairs and stay together for two years.

A relationship will also fall under the new law, if a child arrives.

So, anyone who has a baby, even if there is no relationship between the parents in any permanent sense, will be able to claim on the assets of the other.

That's it.

The partners could even be married to other people - so, cheating spouses who have a baby with someone else, or install a mistress or toy-boy in another house, are exposing themselves to claims on all their other property and assets.

The same applies to couples who choose to live together for reasons of convenience or economy.

They haven't made any formal commitment to each other and may have no intention of being together forever, but the Family Law Amendment Act puts in jeopardy everything they own, including inheritance money and anything they owned before the relationship began.

This law was created for a good and fair purpose: to give equal rights to same-sex couples, many of whom have in the past been denied access to the estates of their deceased partners, for example.

It will also remove discrimination in areas like superannuation, social security, taxation, Medicare, veteran's entitlements and workers' compensation.

It was right to correct the injustice suffered by gay and lesbian couples.

But Parliament's decision to pass this law will have wide and probably unintended consequences for a vast number of other people, purely through what seems to be sloppy drafting.

Existing pre-nuptial agreements may now be worthless.

Wives and husbands who think they are protected by their married status are now exposed. Undoubtedly, there have been some mistresses in the past who have been abandoned by their married boyfriends.

But that's one of the occupational hazards of infidelity: if you take up with a married man, you are accepting a risk.

The real potential victims of this law are the innocent wives or husbands and children. The wedding ring is no protection for them any more.

Imagine the blow of discovering an affair - and then realising that that means everything could be taken away.

The Government must reform the definition of "de facto" so that the legislation is fair. And it should examine bringing our system into line with the rest of the world, so that only "relationship property" that a couple owns together, is up for grabs in a split.

That would protect the rights of both betrayed spouses and of their children.

01 March 2009
The Sunday Telegraph (Sydney)

De facto laws: Lucinda Barrett tells her story

When she became pregnant at 22, Lucinda Barrett felt marriage to her partner wasn't a high priority.

Living together and having a child would afford her the same rights as a married woman.

Or so she assumed.

"I didn't want someone to marry me just because of a baby," she said. "I also thought marriage was an antiquated notion. I thought it was just a bit of paper. I can now see how important marriage is, but I couldn't when I was 22."

Ms Barrett had four children with her partner and they stayed together for seven years, until the relationship deteriorated.

It wasn't until she consulted a lawyer that she realised how vulnerable her position was.

"At that point, I found out that I was not in a great position by not being married," she says. "I had stayed at home to look after the kids, while he built a career in the financial sector. But when we split, I didn't qualify for income support.

"I was surprised in 2005 that I wasn't treated in the same way a wife would be. I assumed that things would be the same, taking into account the way women's rights had progressed.

"I think it's mind-boggling that in 2009 there is a difference ... there is a huge number of people who do not get married."

Ms Barrett is now married to another man, but welcomes the changes in the law as a way of protecting women who find themselves in a similar situation.

"Whoever is the primary carer should be looked after, whether they are married or not, whether they are a man or a woman.

"The system needs to change - primarily for the children involved - to make things as stable as possible."

01 March 2009
The Sunday Telegraph (Sydney)

New laws leave cheating partners open to divorce-style litigation
By Nick Leys

New laws that start today leave cheating husbands open to divorce-style litigation from their mistresses, who can now claim income maintenance, property and even superannuation funds.

The Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures), dubbed the "mistress laws", were passed by the Senate last November.

The main objective is to remove same-sex discrimination from the Family Court system, but they have left the door open for a raft of de facto relationship claims.

The laws declare that de facto couples who satisfy basic criteria - such as being in the relationship for at least two years - will be treated in the Family Court in the same way as a married couple. It also applies to same-sex couples.

The laws will change the way property is divided by enabling the court to consider the "future needs" of partners, as it does for married couples.

Men or women who have a second relationship outside a marriage are now liable to legal action in the Family Court should the second partner decide he or she deserves income support or a share of assets. This is particularly the case if a child is involved.

Major law firms have already been asked for advice on the new laws, from those involved in more than one relationship and long-term de facto couples, who now want to protect their property.

Senior Slater & Gordon family law solicitor Heather McKinnon said firms had now started fielding calls from people "who are a little bit worried".

"A number of firms in Sydney and Melbourne have had inquiries from clients who have had long-standing relationships with people in other cities, in which they have provided accommodation and a lifestyle totally without the knowledge of their married partner," she said.

"It is quite clear that, if either of the two, shall we say women, made an application to the court, the other would have to be notified.

"The law is catching up with the complexity of social relationships. There is now no such thing as a hidden mistress."

Because the laws apply to same-sex couples, married men with gay lovers could potentially end up in the Family Court. The changes could come as a shock to those who feel they are protected by their married status when it comes to extramarital relationships.

The laws could potentially also run into conflict over deceased estates, where children are in dispute with children from other relationships. They will also render void many pre-nuptial agreements.

"Existing pre-nups may now no longer be worth the paper they are written on," Ms McKinnon said.

Sydney University law professor Patrick Parkinson wrote a submission arguing against the amendment when it was under consideration by the Senate.

He warned that the changes to the laws mean people are automatically treated as married.

"What you are saying is that, in terms of property separation, it comes down to 'for better or for worse, till death do us part': if you've made that commitment, fair enough. But young people live together for a variety of reasons, such as to save rent, and don't see themselves as taking responsibility for each other for the rest of their lives."

While protection of children was a motive for the laws, Professor Parkinson said, they will have an ongoing effect on those who have been divorced and want to keep their property separate in a second relationship.

A spokesman for the Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the law was subject to a strict definition of a de facto relationship.

"The Bill specifically states that to have a de facto relationship covered by the legislation a couple must be living together on a genuine domestic basis," he said.

"Moreover, with limited exceptions, that cohabitation must exist for two years. If a couple doesn't live together, don't have children, are not publicly known to be a couple, and don't share financial resources, it is highly unlikely they would be covered by these laws."

But Professor Parkinson questioned this.

"The Attorney-General says he has a tight definition of de facto relationships, but he doesn't. The law says you can be in two relationships simultaneously," he said.

"Take a situation where a wealthy man has a wife at home and another relationship he keeps in an apartment in Potts Point where he spends a few nights a week, telling the wife he is away on business.

"There is a high probability the court will see this as a de facto relationship. "It's a lawyer's paradise."

Dads In Distress is funded by the Australian Federal Government.