By Jewel Topsfield, Canberra

January 23, 2006

SEPARATED parents who expect equal custody of their children under changes to family law will be in for a shock if they have previously shown scant interest in their child's upbringing.

Under the biggest shake-up of family law in 30 years, which has been widely interpreted as "father friendly", a Family Court judge hearing a custody dispute would be required to consider equal time with both parents where it was practicable and in the best interests of the child.

If not, the court must consider giving non-resident parents "substantial and significant" time with the child.

The proposed changes to the Family Law Act, to be debated when Parliament resumes next month, follow sustained lobbying by aggrieved men's groups.

Under a clause in the legislation not included in earlier drafts, a judge making parenting orders would take into account whether parents in custody disputes had failed to spend time with their children.

The judge would also consider whether either of the parents had previously failed to communicate with the child, failed to pay maintenance or failed to participate in making major decisions, such as which school the child should attend.

The judge would also take into account whether one parent had previously stopped the other from having access to the child.

Shadow attorney-general Nicola Roxon welcomed the tougher provision. Labor had criticised an earlier draft of the legislation because it was skewed in favour of the non-resident parent, usually the father.

Ms Roxon said it was crucial that parents making demands in the Family Court were able to demonstrate that they had fulfilled their obligations to their children in the past.

"We are very pleased Mr Ruddock has put pride aside and adopted what was a good suggestion from us," Ms Roxon said.

"At its worst, too narrow a view of shared parenting allows non-resident parents to pick and choose the responsibilities they want to exercise in their relationships with their children."

A spokeswoman for Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said he had inserted the new clause after hearing a wide range of views, including those of parents. "The Attorney-General … feels the debate about family law reforms has been dominated too much by the rights of mums and dads. He thinks the rights of the child should be paramount," she said.

Lone Fathers Association president Barry Williams agreed equal time was not in the best interests of a child where it had been proven that a parent had deliberately ignored the child or refused to pay maintenance.

"Not only males do this … I know many children who haven't seen their mothers for 10 years," Mr Williams said.

But he said there must be proof that a parent had not fulfilled his or her obligations, rather than a mere allegation from the other parent who wanted to deny them access out of spite.

Jac Taylor, from the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children, said she remained concerned about the legislation. Under the changes, women would have to demonstrate a "reasonable" fear of violence to be exempted from forced conciliation or equal child custody with former partners.

"This provides yet another way for the court to dismiss the seriousness of violence and abuse. How do you decide fear is reasonable?" Ms Taylor said.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/custody-laws-to-assess-parents-track-record/2006/01/22/1137864807020.html

Comments (0)