Fathers4Equality Blog, Fathers Matter

The Age (Melbourne)

21 December 2007

Custody rules 'exposing children to war zones'

By Karen Kissane

In a finding that challenges the Howard government's changes to child custody laws, new research has found that children aged under 10 can be emotionally harmed by shared-parenting arrangements in many families.

Where parents cannot co-operate and remain hostile towards each other, shared-parenting arrangements can result in a higher-than-normal rate of clinical anxiety in the children, the research found.

The report follows changes to family law by the Howard government in 2006 in response to lobbying by fathers' groups.

The changes emphasised the concept of equal shared parental responsibility, which is often misinterpreted as meaning equally shared time.

The report recommends that mediators and Family Court judges screen warring couples to ensure that their level of conflict does not make them unsuitable for shared care.

Written by Jennifer McIntosh, a child psychologist and associate professor of psychology at La Trobe University, and former Family Court judge Richard Chisolm, the report will be published next month in the journal Australian Family Lawyer.

Professor McIntosh told The Age that, to be successful, shared parenting must involve parents living close to each other and getting along well enough to have a working arrangement.

They must each feel confident that the other is a competent parent, be financially comfortable, have family-friendly work practices and keep the child out of their disagreements.

These conditions do not exist for many parents who have arrangements adjudicated by a court, Professor McIntosh said.

Litigating couples were more likely to substantially share children, even though 73% in one study reported "almost never" co-operating with each other, and 39% admitted "never" being able to protect their children from conflict.

"Shared care puts children more frequently in the pathway of animosity and acrimony between their parents, witnessing derogatory exchanges, for example," she said. "The core issue is that shared care can inadvertently rob children of security in their relationships with both parents.

"Screening is essential. We should not allocate (shared) time as a means of appeasing angry parents."

Professor McIntosh reported on two recent studies that tracked children's wellbeing after a difficult divorce. One involved 181 children and the other 111 children. In the latter study, 28% of the children were clinically distressed four months after their parents' court case ended.

Living in substantially shared care, being unhappy with those arrangements, and having parents in conflict were associated with poor mental health.

"One of the other realities of shared care is that it's less stable," she said. "It very often breaks down. Older children vote with their feet and say, 'I don't want to do this any more'. My concern is for the little kids who can't vote and have to live in these conditions of sharing their time between two enemies."

She said the concept of substantially shared time — five or more nights a fortnight with the "other" parent — was now being applied to very young children, with 21% of shared-care children in one study aged under four.

Babies and toddlers are developmentally unsuited to shared care.

She said the new law "tried to do good things. It tried to say that relationships with fathers are important, and they are. My data show that too. But, inadvertently, these changes seem to be creating new difficulties."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/custody-rules-exacerbate-child-anxiety/2007/12/20/1197740474287.html

Comments (17) | Permanent Link | Save This Page

VICTIMS of psychological abuse can now have their tormentors convicted under new domestic violence laws passed by State Parliament last week.

The sweeping changes include specific legislation targeting mental abuse, highlighting that domestic violence does not always leave bruises.

The move was welcomed by women's groups who said the law was finally catching up with society.

They are angry Premier Morris Iemma's election promise of a stand-alone domestic violence unit is yet to be finalised.

A discussion paper on how the unit will be implemented was due to be delivered at the end of November but the community is still waiting.

"We are really keen to know what the recommendations of the report are and when it is going to be implemented and established," spokeswoman for NSW Domestic Violence Coalition Betty Green said.

A Premier's Department spokeswoman said the report was under consideration and due to be finalised in the next few weeks.

Mr Iemma told The Daily Telegraph yesterday that psychological abuse was often as traumatic for victims as physical harm and needed to be recognised as such.

Mr Iemma, who has had to dump two ministers due to allegations of domestic violence, made the issue an election platform promising to bring in tough new laws to protect victims.

Previously psychological harm and intimidation were covered separately under vague criminal offences, which were difficult to prosecute.

"We've got to continue to underline the need for the community to remain vigilant on domestic violence," Mr Iemma said. "It is a serious offence in its own right and we've got to send that clear signal.

"In the past offenders were charged with a range of assaults if they committed an act of domestic violence. Under these new laws they'll have a permanent stain recorded against their name.

"It will be recorded on the database of NSW Police allowing them to keep track of repeat offenders and means courts can take the offence into consideration when sentencing."

NSW Women's Refuge Movement executive officer Catherine Gander said recent research showed psychological torment could be as destructive as physical abuse but, until now, had not been recognised legally as a domestic violence offence.

Domestic violence victim Bridget said psychological abuse often went hand-in-hand with physical violence.

"I was belittled, degraded - you see the damage immediately with physical violence but with psychological you carry it through for a lifetime" she said.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22919901-5006009,00.html

 

Comments (8) | Permanent Link | Save This Page

The Age (Melbourne)
10 December 2007 - 10:39PM

Vic launches anti-domestic violence plan

AAP - The Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth) will launch a
new plan on Tuesday to help prevent violence against women.

The plan will form the central plank of the government's work to bring
violence against women to an end, VicHealth chief executive Todd Harper said.

"Violence against women is a crime, it's preventable and it's the single
biggest health impact on women between the ages of 15-44," he said in a
statement.

"There are long-term mental health impacts on the majority of women who
have been affected by family violence.

"VicHealth is very pleased that the state government is leading the nation
by backing a broad approach, working right across the community and
government to prevent violence against women."

The new approach will include contact with women's organisations, working
with young people through schools and programs for men and boys.

Violence against indigenous women would form a part of the plan, Mr Harper
said.

A VicHealth study showed most Victorians believed women should be free from
violence, almost one in four believed domestic violence could be excused if
committed by someone who temporarily lost control or regretted their actions.

Violence against women costs Australia $8.1 billion a year, Access
Economics figures showed.

Mr Harper, Women's Affairs Minister Maxine Morand and Attorney-General Rob
Hulls will reveal details of the model at VicHealth's Carlton offices on
Tuesday.

Comments (4) | Permanent Link | Save This Page

Overseas travel ban on parents in debt

Paul Bibby
December 8, 2007

HUNDREDS of separated parents have been forbidden from travelling overseas during the Christmas break because they have failed to pay child support.

Figures obtained by the Herald reveal that 897 parents who have ignored repeated requests to meet their child support obligations have been placed on departure prohibition orders by the Federal Government's Child Support Agency.

The parents, who owe a total of $11 million in payments, cannot leave the country until they have paid all outstanding child support or made arrangements to pay it off over time.

"Parents need to know that they can't leave their child support debt behind when they leave the country," the agency's general manager, Matt Miller, said.

"If you can afford to travel overseas for a holiday, you can afford to financially support your children. You'd be surprised how many parents who have cried poor can access thousands of dollars within hours of being stopped at the airport."

The agency has introduced data-matching technology developed by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to target non-paying parents - particularly wealthy fathers - who travel frequently.

The technology matches parents who have large outstanding child support debts with the passenger movement cards that travellers fill out when leaving and entering the country.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/overseas-travel-ban-on-parents-in-debt/2007/12/07/1196813021239.html

Comments (2) | Permanent Link | Save This Page

Maxine Frith
November 18, 2007

STEVEN GILLESPIE was overjoyed when his girlfriend of several months told him she was pregnant.

They moved in together and he was present at the birth of their daughter - his first child - in 2004, cutting her umbilical cord and later having her name tattooed on his chest.

It was only after the couple split that she told him that the little girl, then two, was not his - a claim confirmed by a paternity test.

"I was absolutely devastated," Mr Gillespie, a 46-year-old computer expert from Brisbane, said. "My whole family was affected. My parents had been delighted to have a grand-daughter and my sister had bought loads of presents.

"For two years I thought she was my child and loved her and cared for her and now I don't have any rights to see her."

Mike (not his real name) is another man to have experienced the horror of discovering a much-loved child was not his. Mike, 39, brought up four children with his wife believing they were his, later to discover he was only the biological father of the eldest.

The rural labourer from NSW was married for 10 years and had three sons before he had a vasectomy.

When his wife fell pregnant again, Mike believed the vasectomy had failed.

He happily accepted the baby, a girl, as his.

But in 2003 the marriage fell apart and the couple divorced.

Mike became suspicious that the youngest child - his daughter, now nine - was not his. He used a DIY paternity test, which showed he was not the father.

He conducted tests on his three sons - now 14, 13 and 10 - and found that only the eldest was his biological child.

"I was totally shocked," Mike said. "I have lost my whole family and now I only get to see my biological son. It has totally knocked me sideways."

Source: The Sun-Herald

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/men-are-losing-their-families/2007/11/17/1194767021112.html

Comments (1) | Permanent Link | Save This Page

Maxine Frith
November 18, 2007

MEN'S groups are calling for mandatory paternity testing of all newborns as it emerges a record number of men are finding they are not the fathers of children they believed to be theirs.

Almost a quarter of paternity tests conducted by one of Australia's largest DNA laboratory companies show the man submitting a sample is not the father, compared to an estimated one in 10 "exclusions" 10 years ago.

The number of tests taken in Australia has doubled from 3000 in 2003 to more than 6000 last year.

Thousands of men are turning to DIY testing kits - available online - to discover whether they are the biological father while they are still in a relationship and without telling their partners about their suspicions.

Some have brought up children to adulthood or paid tens of thousands of dollars in maintenance to the Child Support Agency (CSA) before finding out they have no genetic link.

Men's Rights Agency co-director Sue Price said: "People's lives are being ruined by this. It is not just the men, it's the children who grow up thinking one person is their father and then find out it's someone else.

"In the future, more and more health treatments are going to be based on genetic technology, so it is going to be even more important to know who your biological father is.

"Mandatory testing would get rid of all these problems."

The DNA Bio Services lab conducts more than 2000 such tests a year from the sale of its DIY kits.

New 2007 figures compiled by the company show that one in 4.5 paternity tests exclude the man as the biological father - a record high since DNA testing began 10 years ago. Managing director Gary Miller said: "The increase is across all social classes and ages - it affects everyone.

"Before, a lot of the work was for men who had been contacted by a woman or the CSA for maintenance and wanted a test to prove they weren't the father.

"Now we see a lot of men in a relationship or just out of one who are just looking for reassurance that they are the father and then find out they're not and are completely devastated."

Under Australian law, the family courts will only order a paternity test if there are reasonable grounds to doubt that the estranged partner is not the biological father.

The CSA does not require proof of paternity beyond a birth certificate or acceptance by a man that he is the father. This means some men pay tens of thousands of dollars through the CSA before finding out they are not the father.

Even if they have brought the children up for years as their own, they are then denied any legal rights of access to them.

Some experts say the proportion of negative paternity tests reflects the fact that the men coming forward already have reasonable doubts, and that of the entire population, only 1 per cent of fathers are not the "real" parent.

Professor Margaret Otlowski, deputy director of the University of Tasmania's Centre for Law and Genetics, said: "I don't think mandatory testing is a good idea.

"I can see the argument from the point of view of creating certainty about parentage, but it would stem from a very suspicious premise and there would be huge implications in terms of relationships."

mfrith@sunherald.com.au

Source: The Sun-Herald

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/whos-the-daddy/2007/11/17/1194767021109.html

Comments (0) | Permanent Link | Save This Page

Thursday, November 1, 2007

Court documents reveal that the father of a toddler left in a hot
car on Tuesday wanted full custody of his son.

The boy's mother, Ashly Duchene, was arrested on one count of
negligent homicide early Wednesday morning.

Duchene is still being closely watched, and it's possible that she
might have been transferred from Fourth Avenue Jail to another
facility.

Police said Duchene left her 17-month-old son, Ryan Gallagher, in
his car seat in her hot car for about seven hours on Tuesday.

Court documents show that the 22-year-old has attempted suicide in
the past. Court documents also suggest that Duchene suffers from
emotional problems and that "couldn't take it anymore."

Police believe Duchene was struggling with the responsibilities of
motherhood.

"She's not happy to care for her child," Sgt. Joel Tranter said.

Duchene reportedly told police she almost forgot Ryan in the car on
Monday.

The next day, she apparently forgot to take him to daycare before
going to work at a Valley Hooter's restaurant. She started work at
10 a.m., and got off at 5 p.m. That's when she found Ryan in the
car.

The decision was made to arrest Duchene on a charge of negligent
homicide early Wednesday morning.

Investigators do not believe Duchene intentionally left her son in
the car, but they're not calling it an accident, either.

"She was very neglectful," Tranter said. "She obviously failed to
care for her child. ... It was so grossly negligent that it rose to
the level of criminal charges."

Customers as well as strangers are dropping off flowers and teddy
bears at the restaurant. Hear from them on Thursday's "Good Evening
Arizona."

http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/stories/KTVKLNews20071101_duchene-
past-suicide-attempts.1c995f4d8.html

Comments (0) | Permanent Link | Save This Page

By JENNY MACINTYRE - Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 21 October 2007

Two young boys have made New Zealand legal history by successfully overturning a Family Court decision forcing them to spend time with their dad. It is the first time such a ruling has been made.

The Auckland brothers, aged nine and 13, went to the High Court to appeal a March 20 Family Court ruling that laid out plans for gradually increasing the time the boys spent with their father.

The Family Court ruling had been made despite expert evidence that the boys had been subjected to psychological damage by previous contact with their father. One expert witness, Auckland University psychology professor Fred Seymour, recommended the children not spend time with their father.

The family had been in and out of the Family Court for the past six years. In August last year the father breached court orders, arriving at the children's home when their mother was out. This was the first time the boys had seen their father in four years and they were left so disturbed that one resumed bed wetting and the other could not sleep.

But on March 20 Judge Laurence Ryan said he was confident risks to the boys could be managed and he ruled contact was in the children's best interest. The lawyer for the children explained the judge's decision to the boys and filed a High Court appeal on their behalf. Justice Judith Potter granted the boys' appeal and ordered their father to have only internet or written contact with his sons.

The Care of Children Act, introduced in 2004, grants children the right to appeal Family Court decisions.

This case was one of the first two decisions under that act, which were released on Friday.

A family law expert said the decisions were significant because they recognised children's rights to express their needs.

He said giving a child the right to appeal was a significant advance in children's rights but there were difficulties in exercising those rights.

"This has happened before parliament has organised support for children and there is no counselling available to help children cope with the pressure going to court puts them under."

The second appeal was only partially successful for the children. Four youngsters, aged eight to 15, wanted less time with their father and tried to overturn a judgement which ordered them to spend some weeknights with their dad.

Potter upheld Ryan's earlier decision that this father should be more involved in his children's lives, but she excused the 15-year-old from staying with her father. The justice also overturned an order barring the mother from sporting events when the children were in the father's care.

Last year the Family Court allowed a teenager to divorce her mother. But the High Court overturned that decision, reinstating the mother's guardianship of her daughter.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4245683a11.html

Comments (215) | Permanent Link | Save This Page

IS Kevin Rudd interested in men?

The answer, sadly, seems to be no.

Unlike John Howard, the Opposition Leader rarely talks about issues affecting many of his own gender, such as family law, child support, fatherless families, boys' education.

Indeed, this potential prime minister seems content to hand over the running on most social issues to female colleagues renowned for their anti-male bias.

For anyone keen to ensure men and boys receive a fair go, the prospect of a Labor government is all bad news.

As a prime minister, John Howard has been most unusual in his passion for social issues, his famous "barbecue stoppers" and his willingness to stick his neck out and speak about the role of men.

Remember the debate about single women's access to IVF?

While most politicians were cowed by the wave of women's rights rhetoric, Howard voiced the concern of many suggesting it isn't in our society's interest to encourage more fatherless families.

Picking up on community discontent about children losing contact with fathers after divorce, he set up a bipartisan committee to look into the "rebuttable presumption of joint custody", where parents share care unless good reasons preclude it.

But Labor's Jennie George and Jenny Macklin dug in and the committee was forced to water down their recommendations.

A 2005 survey of parliamentarians by Fathers4Equality showed 62 Coalition members likely to support a shared parenting amendment compared with six from Labor.

Yet, resulting changes to the Family Law Act have done much to ensure children's rights to contact with both parents.

Labor reluctantly supported the legislation, with Kevin Rudd expressing great concern about the changes.

He deferred to his then shadow attorney-general, Nicola Roxon, who played up the fear that children would be forced to spend time with dangerous dads.

Roxon previously dismissed the custody inquiry as "dog whistle politics to men's groups aggrieved by the Family Court". Labor's disdain for such groups is consistently demonstrated as Labor shadow ministers refuse to meet even the most respected of these organisations, despite strenuous efforts by a sprinkling of Labor backbenchers to encourage their party to take interest.

Labor MP Roger Price spent years tearing his hair out over his party's failure to implement the recommendations of the inquiry into child support that he chaired in the early 1990s.

It was the Howard Government that finally tackled this controversial issue, implementing far reaching changes recommended by an expert committee to make the scheme more equitable.

Yet, Labor's determination to cater to lone-mother lobby groups shows in their recent announcement that they are monitoring the scheme to ensure the primary carer is not disadvantaged.

They have also expressed concern about Government efforts to help lone mothers make the transition from welfare to work.

Both policies could well suffer rollbacks if Labor ends up in power.

Labor doesn't just have it in for men.

The party has consistently favoured women in the workforce over mothers at home with young children.

The last time Labor was in power, families relying on one income lost ground compared with other families, suffering an average 4 per cent drop between 1982 and 1995, according to the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling in Canberra.

At the time, Joe De Bruyn, national chairman of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Union blamed Labor's "femocrat advisers" for consistently refusing to support women who stayed home, choosing instead to promote child care to encourage workforce participation.

With more than 75 per cent of all families relying on one income when they have infants, Howard moved to increase their support. Between 1996 and 2001, a single-income, two-child family on average weekly earnings gained 16 per cent in disposable income.

Labor's more recent support for the babycare payment is a sign the feminist ideologues may be losing some of their grip on the party, but there are clear signs biases remain.

One major reason Keating lost power was the perception that Labor governed for some rather than for all.

The 750,000 non-resident parents in Australia are one group who should be wary that their interests have no place on a Labor agenda.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22668402-5000117,00.html

Comments (0) | Permanent Link | Save This Page

Bettina Arndt

February 02, 2007

FAMILY courts have always been known for dirty tricks but recent stories to emerge from Britain show gutter tactics have reached new lows.

A father recently appeared in a UK Family Court, representing himself in a custody dispute.

He made his argument, quoting a judgment sent to him by a well-known fathers' support group.

The opposing barrister pulled him up – claiming the case he had mentioned had never appeared in the law reports. The father was made to look a fool and a conman, and the angry judge warned him he could face up to $20,000 in court costs.

But when the source of the offending email quoting the forged case was finally traced, it turned out to have been sent by the wife's barrister – who is now scheduled for a court appearance for perverting the course of justice.

Then there was the misleading 2004 document produced by a UK feminist support group for victims of violence – Women's Aid federation of England – which suggested that in the previous 10 years, 29 children had been killed by their fathers as a result of court-ordered contact arrangements.

The so-called research made a huge media splash, leading to the paper being used as ammunition by lawyers arguing against child contact with men with any history of violence.

Appeal judge Nicholas Wall has now released a report investigating the real circumstances of those 29 tragic homicides.

In 18 of the cases, the families had nothing to do with the family court while in another eight cases court proceedings gave no forewarning of the violence. He found only three cases which gave rise to concern but Wall concluded that even here, from the evidence presented, the judges had good reason to allow contact

Yes, we should be very concerned about the risks of violence to children of separated parents.

However, it is disgraceful the way the violence card is played to try to frighten politicians and the public from making proper decisions about the care of children after divorce.

Last year in Australia, amendments were made to family law to support children's rights to contact with both parents after divorce, changes which included extra protection for children from violence. Yet these welcome changes are under attack from women's groups afraid the new laws will undermine the licence given to mothers to shut fathers out of children's lives.

The cries of alarm began long before the changes made it into law. Look at the National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children, which makes clear its position on the irrelevance of fathers with its insulting slogan – "Half the couple, twice the parent".

NCSMC executive officer Elspeth McInnes's reaction to the legal changes was to express horror this would mean "more children will be required to live in two households and families fleeing violence will face new risks and penalties", adding 100 mothers and children were "killed every year by partners and fathers around family breakdown".

Sound familiar? The British homicide tactic rides again.

Many women's groups are very nervous about new Family Relationship Centres set up particularly to deal with children's matters.

The Government has rightly concluded that caring for children after divorce is a relationship issue, not a legal one and that the previous adversarial system was disastrous for children.

But that legal system served the interests of the punitive mother very well since it failed so dismally to enforce contact orders and allowed allegations of violence to be used to deny fathers contact with their children.

Remember the 1999 magistrate's survey which found 90 per cent of magistrates believed false AVOs were used as a tactic in family law cases "to deprive partners access to children"?

Be prepared for more dirty tricks as lobby groups do their best to discredit the FRCs – aided by nervous lawyers who rightly fear that if the centres are successful, fewer divorcing families will use lawyers to fight over children.

Bettina Arndt is a writer and social commentator

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21154529-27197,00.html

Comments (255) | Permanent Link | Save This Page