John Flanagan,

Deputy Registered Officer,

Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting),

PO Box 57,

THIRROUL.. NSW. 2515.

Mobile 0415 899 574.

Email: noncustod@yahoo.com.au                                                                                          28 May 2013.

Committee Secretary,

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs,

PO Box 6021,

Parliament House.

CANBERRA. ACT. 2600.

Phone: (02) 6277 2223 Fax: (02) 6277 4427 childsupport.reps@aph.gov.au

Dear Sir

Parliamentary Inquiry into the Child Support Program.

We thank the Standing Committee for allowing us to present our submission to the inquiry into the Child Support Programme.

Our submission can be summarized by stating that the fundamental culture of the Child Support

Programme needs to be fixed. This is before any review of the functioning of the child support system can be carried out.

Should this first step not be taken, then any reforms made to the child support formula will be ineffective.

1. The Culture of the Child Support Programme needs to be Fixed.

On the 15 June 1215, King John of England pressed his royal seal to the Magna Carta. The result was that the king was bound by the law. This is rather than the king being above the law. This is what is meant in the phrase “the rule of law”. This simply means that all authority comes from the law itself.

However the Child Support Programme and its 4,000 employees see themselves as being above the law.

Page 1

This is the cause of the poor culture of the Child Support Programme and its employees.

This comment is supported by the following two (2) examples from the current child support legislation.

(a) Section 98H of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989:

During a departure application, the Senior Case Officer may admit anything he or she pleases. There are no rules of evidence when it comes to child support decisions.

Section 98H of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 states that:

Procedure for dealing with an application.

(1) In making a decision under this Division in relation to an application, the Registrar:

……………………

(b) may, but is not required to, conduct any inquiry or investigation into the matter.

……………………………

(4) Any hearing before the Registrar, and any inquiry or investigation carried out by the Registrar, is to be carried out as the Registrar thinks fit and the Registrar is not bound by any rules of evidence.

The decision made by the Senior Case Officer can be reviewed through an internal review process. However this review is still subject to this Section 98H regarding no rules of evidence.

(b). Section 103N of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

The Social Security Appeals Tribunal is the next avenue that can be used to review a decision made by the Senior Case Officer from the Child Support Programme.

The members of Social Security Appeals Tribunal are similarly not governed by the rules of evidence. Normally the review is heard by one (1) member rather than the customary three (3) members. Perhaps this is for reasons of expediency. This is not known. However it is known that many of the members of the Tribunal are often ex-Child Support Programme employees. They would no doubt be familiar with the previous Section 98H .

Section 103N of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 states that:

Hearing procedure.

(1) The SSAT, in reviewing a decision under this Part:

(a) is not bound by legal technicalities, legal forms or  rules of evidence; and

(b) is to act as speedily as a proper consideration of the review allows; and

Page 2

(2) The SSAT may inform itself on any matter relevant to a review of a decision in any manner it considers appropriate.

Note: The SSAT Principle Member may give directions as to the procedure to be followed in connection with reviews (see section 103ZA).

As a result, both the Senior Case Officer of the Child Support Programme and the members of Social Security Appeals Tribunal have more power than a judge.

This is because judges are governed by the rules of evidence contained in the Commonwealth Evidence Act 1995.

There is then no appeal to a court of law from a decision made by the member(s) of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. That is, unless there has been an error of law.

It is almost impossible to overturn a departure application decision made by the Child Support

Programme on the basis of the Senior Case Officer in the Child Support Programme having not followed evidence in the original hearing.

This comment is supported by a decision by a Federal Magistrate in Laurie & Child Support Registrar and Filho [2009] FMCAfam 721 (10 July 2009). This decision affirmed that this was the case.

It is noted that the Laurie decision was then unsuccessfully taken to the Full Court of the Family Court and then to the High Court of Australia.

In the Full Court of the Family Court, the Laurie decision was affirmed in Laurie & Child Support Registrar [2009] FamCAFC 183 (12 October 2009).

In the High Court, the Laurie decision was then further affirmed twice; once in GL v Child Support Registrar [2010] HCATrans 102 (23 April 2010) and again in GL v Child Support Registrar & Anor [2010] HCASL 232 (30 September 2010).

The issue of the lack of rules of evidence is very important in “capacity to earn” decisions

Alby Schultz, the previous MP for Hume, spoke about the effect of “capacity to earn” decisions in Parliament on 12 October 2006. An excerpt from Alby Schutz’s concluding remarks is below:-

In closing on that point, the capacity to earn issue — because of the way it is applied and the anguish that it is causing through the mental, social and economic pressures it places unfairly on individuals—is, I believe, because it is the only government agency in the country that practises it, unconstitutional….”

As a result, there is an underlying culture in that the employees in the Child Support Programme (and members of the SSAT with regard to child support matters) act as though they are above the law.

There has to be a change in the culture of child support administration. This is a fundamental prerequisite to any legislative changes such as the items listed below.

Page 3

2. The Child Support Legislation Needs to be Fixed.

Once the culture is fixed, it is submitted that we would then require a minimum of six (6) legislative changes to the child support system.

These changes are listed below:

(a) Implementation of a rebuttable presumption of Equal Time Shared Parenting. This would be assisted by the removal of the family violence provisions added to the Family Law Act 1975 in 2012.

(b) The payee should pay the tax on child support payments and not the payer. That is, the current situation should be reversed.

(c) Overtime pay should be excluded from child support calculations.

(d) A fairer cap on maximum income should be used to determine child support payments; we would suggest that this figure should be set at about $40,000 per annum (Currently this is calculated at 2.5 x MTAWE. In 2014, this figure was 2.5 times $70,569 or $176,423 per annum).

(e) The payer should not be penalized if the payee chooses not to work when that payee has the ability to do so.

(f) Court-ordered custody arrangements should determine child support payments – not “word-of-mouth” claims by the payee – as it is now.

Once the culture is fixed as outlined in item 1 above, it is submitted that these six (6) legislative changes should be then implemented as soon as possible.

This would then provide a direct incentive to the payer and an indirect incentive to the payee to make a new system work for the benefit of everyone.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

John Flanagan,

Deputy Registered Officer, Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting). http://www.equalparenting.org.au

Page 4

Madigan Family Court

SPEECH

Tuesday, 25 March 2014

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE

Tuesday, 25 March 2014 THE SENATE 100

CHAMBER

SPEECH

Date Tuesday, 25 March 2014 Source Senate

Page 100 Proof Yes

Questioner Responder

Speaker Madigan, Sen John Question No.

Senator MADIGAN (Victoria) (22:34): I rise tonight

to speak about what a barrister has described to me as

the all but complete denial of access to the courts for

ordinary people due to the severe and extreme cost of

litigation. This barrister, an experienced and objective

advocate in criminal and commercial matters, despairs

at the legal injustices that go unaddressed. He despairs

at the ongoing harm caused by a legal culture that has

priced access to the courts completely out of the reach

of ordinary Australians. The gravy train legal culture

that prevails is most dangerous when it impacts the

weakest and most vulnerable in our society. Our legal

practitioners, this barrister said, have increasingly lost

their identity as officers of the court, with all of the

obligations that entails. They are, he said, preoccupied

with commercial advancement.

Representing people before a court is so time

consuming and demanding that ordinary people can

no longer afford it. Those who need the protection

of the law the most—the poor and alienated—have

no hope of getting the considered and experienced

representation they desperately need. Ironically, and

all too frequently, litigation causes financial ruination

to the parties and creates problems which dwarf the

original dispute. The long-term harm and distress

persist long after the legal issue is resolved or

abandoned for want of resources.

Last week saw a case in point. On Wednesday I

excused myself from this place to attend the Federal

Court in Melbourne in support of a constituent.

Appearing before the court was a farmer from western

Victoria, someone I have known for many years.

His farm was bankrupted by his own law firm. This

firm had represented this individual in a family farm

partnership dispute that began in 2005. Anyone who

has worked on the land would not be unfamiliar with

the concept of a family farm partnership dispute.

Farm partnerships and farm succession planning are an

inevitable part of almost any rural operation. But in this

case the farmer in question—I will call him Murray—

has had his life destroyed by the legal firm he appointed

to protect his interests.

According to his affidavit, Murray obtained a projected

legal cost in 2005 from law firm Russell Kennedy

of approximately $30,000. He was further advised

in 2007—when the costs were already $83,990,

according to the affidavit—that the proceedings might

cost a further $100,000, including disbursements. At

the time, according to documents presented in the

court, part of Murray’s costs would be recovered—

Russell Kennedy told him. But, by the conclusion of

the matter, Murray’s fees from Russell Kennedy were

in excess of $380,000. I repeat: an initial estimation of

costs to Murray by Russell Kennedy of $30,000 had

grown to $380,000.

But that is not all. A key part of Murray’s action in

this partnership dispute was a diary. In this diary was a

record of an agreement between Murray and his father.

And this diary was lost by Russell Kennedy some

time in 2008, according to documentation attached to

Murray’s affidavit. In an earlier court action, it was

ruled the discovery of the original diary should be

made. This is stated in a letter dated 1 September 2008,

and written by Russell Kennedy principal Michael

Main. In that same letter, Mr Main said: ‘We will

continue our search for the diary, and would be grateful

if you could also check to ensure that it is still not

in your possession or has been returned to you by

mistake.’ That is right: Murray’s own law firm, it

appears, lost a crucial piece of evidence.

On the website of Russell Kennedy it says the

firm is committed to making a difference to their

clients. Certainly, Murray’s involvement with Russell

Kennedy has made a difference in his life. Because

of their incompetence, because of their extraordinary

poker-machine-style fee-accrual system and because

of their sheer legal bloody-mindedness, Russell

Kennedy decided to bankrupt a sole individual farmer.

Murray’s prospects of financial recovery, of rebuilding

his life, have been severely threatened by this action.

And how much money did Russell Kennedy get back

against their $380,000 bill? Not a cent. Murray was

already virtually destitute. It was an action based on the

strict confines of the law, as futile it was vicious. And,

while Russell Kennedy’s action may have been legal,

was it appropriate? Was it fair? Was it ethical?

Needless to say, it was the same Mr Main who appeared

at court last week in his firm’s proceedings against

my constituent. The Federal Court is, of course, only

one platform in our legal industry. There is the High

Court, the Supreme Court, the County Court and the

Magistrate’s Court. It is a labyrinth, with top lawyers

commanding fees of $10,000 a day or higher for their

Tuesday, 25 March 2014 THE SENATE 101

CHAMBER

services. According to research by Ibis, legal services

in Australia are a $21 billion industry, employing

nearly 100,000 people. It is a gravy train with many,

many carriages.

But for the moment I would like to drill down into

one aspect of this labyrinth, the Family Court. In many

ways, this is both the most important and the most

divisive part of our legal system. I say that because it

goes to the heart of Australian society—our families

and our children. The current state of the Family Court

points to a tragic legacy left behind by the previous

The Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family

Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011 was passed

by the Senate and came into effect in 2012. This

legislation changed the Howard government’s shared

parenting reforms via a spurious claim to provide

greater protection for children from family violence.

The objective was to improve the Family Court’s

decision making by giving priority to a child’s safety

when determining what is in their best interests. The

aim was also to make it easier for allegations of family

violence and sexual abuse to be brought before the

court. And was this successful?

Last year a retiring Family Court judge gave his view,

which was reported in the Fairfax press. Justice David

Collier had 14 years on the bench. And, keep in mind, it

is rare for Family Court judges to speak publicly about

their views. Many of us would recall the 1980 murder

of Justice David Opas and the 1984 bombings of the

Parramatta Family Court building and the homes of

two judges. The Family Court is the flashpoint for the

breakdown in family life. It is a place of heat and anger

and stress. It is a place where lives collapse and are

changed forever.

Justice Collier gives us clear insight into what is

currently forging this tragic metallurgy of Australian

families in crisis. He said unprecedented hostility

was infiltrating the Family Court, with a willingness

by parents to use their children to damage one

another. ‘Allegations of child sexual abuse are being

increasingly invented by mothers to stop fathers from

seeing their children’, Justice Collier said. I quote from

Justice Collier: ‘

When you have heard the evidence, you realise that this

is a person who’s so determined to win that he or she

will say anything. I’m satisfied that a number of people

who have appeared before me have known that it is one

of the ways of completely shutting husbands out of the

child’s life.

Justice Collier called this ‘a horrible weapon’.

The continued use of false claims is undoubtedly

fuelling the crisis of our Family Court system. Member

for Dawson George Christensen has been a strong

campaigner against our unfair family law and child

support systems

He referred to the Gillard government amendment as

a Trojan horse, loaded with consequences that would

undermine some of the most basic human rights of

children and parents, particularly fathers. This reform

to the act provided for two primary concerns for

the Family Court to consider when making parenting

orders. The first concern was the benefit to the

child of having a meaningful relationship with both

of their parents. The second concern was the need

to protect children from harm and abuse. On the

surface, both of these seem valid. However, the Gillard

government’s amended act clarified the second primary

consideration of violence over the shared parenting

provisions. Where there is a conflict between these

two primary considerations, the act now requires the

courts to give more priority to the protection of children

from harm and abuse. Is that a good idea? Of course

it is in principle. But this amendment has allowed

the introduction of many false allegations in the

court. According to many Family Court practitioners

—the judges, the clerks, the barristers and others—the

system is on the brink of collapse.

The Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia told

ABC radio earlier this month that cuts to legal aid have

led to more and more people representing themselves.

Chief Justice Diana Bryant said that the Family Court

system was unquestionably compromised. She said

that the Family Court produces decisions that do not

stick and then you have people who are unhappy with

decisions or who take matters into their own hands.

Chief Justice Bryant said:

… there are mental health issues and the court needs

to know about those issues and to know the extent of

them, and you don’t have parties with the capacity to

bring the right evidence, then you are certainly putting

children at risk.

Aiding this breakdown of the Family Court system

was the repeal of the sections—including 60CC(3)(c)

—that were known as the friendly parent provisions.

This meant the court is no longer required to consider

the willingness and ability of a parent to facilitate a

relationship with the other parent in determining the

best interests of the child. Reforms by the Howard

government were designed to get away from the

adversarial system and allow a court to consider giving

custody to the parent who was most likely to include

the other parent in the child’s right to have a meaningful

relationship with both parents.

Tuesday, 25 March 2014 THE SENATE 102

CHAMBER

Additional consideration under the aforementioned

section also requires the court to consider the extent

to which each parent has fulfilled or failed to fulfil his

or her obligations to maintain the child. This includes

the extent to which the father or mother has taken

the opportunity to participate in decision making in

relation to the child, as well as spending time with

and communicating with the child. As divorce is no

fault, the reasons for failing in this area are seldom

considered, so parental alienation becomes a successful

tactic. One parent presents an accusation against the

other parent for failing to be involved. Excluding the

other parent becomes the grounds to further eject the

alienated parent.

Additionally, hearsay evidence of children is now

allowed in Family Court proceedings. The provisions

of the Evidence Act 1995 do not apply to childrelated

proceedings. The Gillard government repealed

the section which allowed the courts to order costs

against a party who has been found to have knowingly

made false allegations or statements before the court.

This means any accusations can be made in a Family

Court hearing with impunity. Frequently, we hear

unsupported accusations of abhorrent behaviour by

one parent. As I said earlier, Justice Collier called

this ‘a horrible weapon’. Lastly, we operate under a

new definition of family violence. This means family

violence now means just about anything. So it is open

slather; there are claims, counter-claims and a veritable

river of unsubstantiated accusations in Family Court

A survey of 68 New South Wales magistrates

concerning apprehended violence orders—AVOs—

found that 90 per cent agreed that some AVOs were

sought as a tactic to aid a person’s case in order to

deprive a former partner of contact with their children.

About a third of those who thought AVOs were used

tactically indicated that it did not occur often, but one

in six believed it occurred all the time. A similar survey

of 38 Queensland magistrates found that 74 per cent

agreed with the proposition that protection orders are

used in Family Court proceedings as a tactic to aid a

parent’s case and to deprive their partner of contact with

their children.

It is time to ask ourselves if we are falling short of

the ideal professed under the international Convention

on the Rights of the Child. Included in this are the

child’s right not to be separated from his or her

parents against the child’s will, the child’s right to

maintain contact with both parents if they separate,

the child’s right to be heard in any judicial and

administrative proceedings, and the child’s right to

freedom of expression. Lastly, the convention provides

that parents or legal guardians have the primary

responsibility for the child’s upbringing.

As the member for Dawson said earlier this month,

family law and child support are messy areas and there

are no winners. But under the current system some

of the losers are being turned into massive losers.

That is even to the extent of losing their children and

their lives. The current system is blatantly unfair and

negligent. It is biased against fathers. It is unfair to

children, who are the most vulnerable members of our

communities. It must be fixed, as a matter of urgency.

Senate adjourned at 22 : 51

We are going to petition the senate to make changes to family law and courts, let us know your thoughts, complete with your name and email address to make it official, please read below… we have a senator and a growing number of MP’s leading it, we have 3 months to get in a petition, please sign, forward to everyone and family and friends can sign too.

THE SENATE PROOF ADJOURNMENT Access to Justice

Individuals and organisations may seek to have petitions presented to the Senate. Petitions generally express views on matters of public policy and ask the Parliament to take – or in some cases, not to take – a particular course of action.

Preparation

When preparing a petition, there are certain rules that need to be followed in order for it to be accepted by the Senate (see standing order 70):
•the petition must be addressed to the Senate
•it must contain a request for action by the Senate or the Parliament
•the text of the petition must be visible on every page
•only original documents will be accepted – no faxes or photocopies
•no letters, affidavits, or other documents can be attached

See below for a sample format of a petition.

If you require assistance, a draft of your petition may be emailed to the Petitions Officer to ensure that it conforms with the standing orders or, alternatively, you can call 02 6277 3014.

Presentation

Only a senator may present a petition, so you will need to forward your petition to a senator and request that he or she present it. The list of senators shows you those who represent your state or territory.

Electronic petitions

The Senate will accept a print out of a petition that has been posted on an internet page and that people have ‘signed’ by submitting their names and email addresses.

Petitions that are posted and signed electronically are accepted if the senator presenting the petition certifies that they have been duly posted with the text available to the signatories. In presenting an electronic petition, the senator lodges a paper document containing the text of the petition and a list of the signatures submitted.

The rules set out in standing order 70 also apply to electronic petitions.

What happens next?

Petitions are announced in the Senate and the full text of each petition is printed in Hansard.

Petitions presented to the Senate are brought to the notice of the appropriate Senate committee. A committee may seek a reference from the Senate into the issues contained in a petition, or may use the petition as evidence in a related inquiry.

Petitions and privilege

The presentation of a petition to the Senate is a proceeding in Parliament and is protected by Parliamentary Privilege. The publication of a petition before presentation is not similarly protected. For further information see Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, Chapter 2, under Circulation of Petitions.

Sample format of a petition

To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:

The petition of the undersigned shows:

(state grievance or subject of complaint)

Your petitioners ask that the Senate:

(state the action required)

Name

Address

Signature

HERE … http://fathersaustralia.com/individuals-and-organisations-may-seek-to-have-petitions-presented-to-the-senate/

Owen’s theorem Owen’s syndrome Robert Owen (14 May 1771 – 17 November) was a Welsh social reformer and one of the founders of socialism and the cooperative movement. Owen’s son Robert Dale stayed at New Harmony after its collapse. He had a different assessment of his father’s experiment.

“All cooperative schemes which provide equal remuneration to the skilled and industrious and the ignorant and idle must work their own downfall, for by this unjust plan … they must of necessity eliminate the valuable members … and retain only the improvident, unskilled, and vicious.”

Septic poisoned well KGB ABC Our Australian Bigots Corporation and ALP DEBT that we have to pay for, Our ABC should volunteer to take a 10% budget cut to help Australians pay down ALP DEBT… Forward, Like and Share https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FR85HHH

 

By: Manisharaj Kaur Pannu

In cases involving family law matters, there are concerns that a party to a case may provide the court with false or misleading evidence – in particular, false allegations of family violence and abuse, which could subsequently affect the outcome of a case.

Section 117AB was inserted into the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (‘Family Law Act’) to address this particular concern. The section mandates that a court must make a costs order against a party who ‘knowingly made a false allegation or statement in the proceedings.’

From 7^th June 2012, however, section117AB was removed from the Family Law Act via the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011(‘Family Violence Act’).

Why was section 117AB removed?

The amendments brought about by the Family Violence Act were driven by the need to offer better protection for family members at risk of violence and abuse.¹This necessitated the removal of section 117AB because previous research indicated that section 117AB has a discouraging effect on the disclosure of family violence. Parties may refrain from disclosing family violence or abuse due to fear of a costs order being made against them should they fail to substantiate the allegations.²

Secondly,there was no or scarce evidence that section 117AB was effective in preventing the making of false allegations of family violence.³In practice, costs orders under s 117AB are rarely made.⁴

How does the Family Law Act now deal with false allegations?

Removing section 117AB does not mean that no consequences are attached to the making of false allegations in court.Under section 117, the courts have discretionary powers to make costs orders if the court is of the opinion that there are circumstances to justify doing so. Section 117 is broad enough to deal with the making of false statements and it is likely that knowingly making false allegations of violence justify the making of a costs order.⁵

For better or for worse?

The fact that the courts can still make a cost order against a party who has made false allegations begs the question: what has the removal of section 117AB achieved?

Section 117AB carries with it the connotation that the courts are suspicious of parties who allege violence in family law matters.⁶ Removing section 117AB represents a symbolic shift in thinking –the law is encouraging all information to be truthfully presented to the court⁷to ensure safe parenting arrangements can be made.

Additional amendments brought about by the Family Violence Act have further supported this change. The very definition of violence and abuse in the Family Law Act has been broadened to include physical and emotional abuse, and the exposure of children to family violence.⁸The Family Law Act also sets out anon-exhaustive list of examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence for guidance.⁹

The Family Law Act also imposes obligations on the court to take prompt action in relation to allegations of child abuse or family violence (section 67ZBB) and to question each party to child-related proceedings about the presence or risk of family violence or abuse (section 69ZQ).¹⁰

Footnotes

¹Attorney-General’s Department, Family Violence Act – Frequently Asked Questions, 4.

²Parliament of Australia, Bill Digest, No 126 of 2010-11, 25 May 2011.

³Ibid.

⁴R Chisholm, Family Courts Violence Review, 2009, 112.

⁵Attorney-General’s Department, Family Violence Act – Frequently Asked Questions, 10.

⁶R Chisholm, Family Courts Violence Review, 2009, 118.

⁷Ibid.

⁸Attorney-General’s Department, Family Violence Act – Frequently Asked Questions, 8,9.

⁹Ibid.

¹⁰Ibid.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

January 26, 2014 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

Following up on Friday’s post on Dr. Linda Nielsen’s masterly analysis of the social science on post-divorce fatherhood and dads’ relationships with their children – principally their daughters – that science shows that the solution to the problems created by court-induced fatherlessness is, as we might expect, more contact with fathers. Here again is Dr. Nielsen’s analysis.

By now, we’re all aware of the many deficits faced by children without fathers. The data Nielsen cites demonstrate that, to a great degree, it is the family court system that brings those deficits into being by issuing parenting orders that effectively remove fathers from children’s lives. What the courts are doing is directly in line with the desires of mothers and directly opposed to the needs of children and the rights of fathers. But scientifically-demonstrated bias on the part of judges and custody evaluators continues the practice whereby fit, loving fathers are relegated to mere visitors in the lives of their children.

The standard visitation order is precisely designed to give fathers enough time with their children to call it “shared parenting,” but not enough to ameliorate the negative impact of divorce on children. The simple fact is that 15% – 20% parenting time for fathers is not enough to maintain parent-child bonds, and it is exactly that amount of time that standard orders afford fathers. In the overwhelming majority of states, Mom has to give her approval for Dad to see more of his kids and, given her identification as the primary caregiver together with the drop in child support greater time would mean, mothers are seldom willing to grant that consent.

Too bad for kids. Study after study indicates that they’d prefer more time with their fathers, but family courts that routinely rubberstamp the desires of mothers deny it to them. As but one example, a 20-year study of the children of divorce found that those with the most time with their fathers turned out to be the best adjusted over time. Those who spent more than 25% of their custodial time with their fathers did best. And half of them felt that their relationship with their fathers actually improved post-divorce as long as they had ample time with him. (Nielsen says that “ample” means more than 25%.)

That strongly suggests that, while Mom and Dad were together, he tended to fulfill the usual paternal role of breadwinner, meaning he had less time with his children. Freed from that role by divorce, he was able to actually devote more real parenting energy and time to them. The result: better relationships with his children than he had when he was married.

It’s no surprise then that 93% of college students with divorced parents said they favored shared parenting; 70% who lived most of the time with their mothers wished they’d had more time with their dads; and only 10% of children in shared parenting arrangements ended up with just one parent or the other.

That last is important because it’s one of the many dodges used by the anti-dad crowd to oppose shared parenting. “Why should parenting be shared?” so the argument goes. “The kids will only end up with Mom eventually.” As with so much anti-shared parenting rhetoric, it’s just not so.

As is well known by now, in 2002, Bauserman analyzed 33 different studies of shared and sole parenting and found that kids who spent more time with their fathers tended to do better in school, have better mental health, be more self-confident and be better adjusted to their parents’ divorce. Significantly, all those things were true even of children whose parents were in conflict with each other.

That again is important. As with the claim that children tend to end up with Mom regardless of the parenting arrangement immediately following divorce, the claim that ongoing parental conflict should negate shared parenting is just flat wrong. The fact is, children generally can handle their parents’ disagreements. They don’t like them, but they’re nowhere near as destructive of them as losing one of the parents would be.

Yet another anti-shared parenting argument Nielsen puts to rest is the one that claims that pre-school children should only be with their mothers. Currently, Australian researcher Jennifer McIntosh is the chief advocate for that claim. Her research has been utterly destroyed by Patrick Parkinson among others. She cherry-picks her data and, in many cases, it simply doesn’t say what she says it does. But even McIntosh, inveterate anti-shared parenting advocate that she is, doesn’t claim that fathers should have no contact with their children when they’re under a certain age. Her argument is that they shouldn’t see the little ones overnight.

That too turns out to be wrong, but it’s important to understand that McIntosh nowhere claims that fathers shouldn’t see their children, even when they’re newborns.

As Nielsen points out, it is vitally important for fathers to have real contact with their children at the earliest stages of their lives. That includes overnight visits. The reason is that children bond with their parents as with no one else. Those bonds are necessary to the well-being of the child throughout its life and the process of bonding can’t be put off or shortchanged. As I’ve said before, children learn in the earliest weeks of life to differentiate between Dad and Mom. There’s literally no substitute for father-child time during that time.

Children need strong bonds to both parents and each parent’s bonds with their children are equally important to their future well-being.

Since Nielsen’s report focuses on parental bonds with their daughters, she emphasizes the danger of mother-daughter bonding that’s too exclusive of Dad. In that case, the mother may be uniquely needy and the daughter end up playing the role of parent, confidante and protector to the mother. Needless to say, that’s not healthy for the girl’s maturation, but, seeing her mother’s dependency, she may strongly desire to respond as needed. That may lead her to resist spending time with her father which ironically is probably exactly what she needs.

Nielsen’s analysis isn’t long, running to only about 10 pages. But it has plenty of heft as its citations to 135 separate studies demonstrate. It’s necessary reading. As I said before, everyone who plays any part in deciding child custody should read it, including mothers and fathers. One of the very best things we can do for our society is to bring fathers back into their children’s lives. That means educating judges, legislatures, mental health professionals, fathers and mothers about what truly promotes the best interests of children. As Nielsen says, overwhelmingly that means one thing – “more dad time, more shared parenting, more living with Dad.”

National Parents Organization is a Shared Parenting Organization

National Parents Organization is a non-profit that educates the public, families, educators, and legislators about the importance of shared parenting and how it can reduce conflict in children, parents, and extended families. Along with Shared Parenting we advocate for fair Child Support and Alimony Legislation. Want to get involved?  Here’s how:

• Become an official member of the National Parents Organization team.
• Join our Facebook Page.

Together, we can drive home the family, child development, social and national benefits of shared parenting, and fair child support and alimony. Thank you for your activism.

As you may be well aware of the antisocial discrimination against males that has arisen, I need to bring a complaint of very wrongful belief of women and the Australian Human Rights Commission, that children belong to women.

I must make complaint to you as Australian Human Rights Commission.

Males are violated and abused nearly as much as females, discriminated against more, females violate and abuse children more than males do, equates to most DV is perpetrated by women.

Inquiry into the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011

5. The Commission commends the actions that the Australian Government is taking to combat family violence and child abuse, including the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020, the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and “their” Children 2010-2022 and the development of a national scheme for recognition of domestic violence orders across Australian jurisdictions. These initiatives evidence the ongoing commitment of the Australian government to this area.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/inquiry-family-law-legislation-amendment-family-violence-and-other-measures-bill-2011

Australia Concise Oxford dictionary Fifth Edition; P1496 “their” … belonging to them or themselves.

This is in breach of Article 4 and unlawful as it enslaves children to women …

This is a serious repeated indictment of antisocial discrimination by AHRC ‘women and their children their property’ enslaving victimizing children.

Enslavers on breach of Article 4 of the UDHR states that ‘No one shall be held in slavery or servitude: slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms’.

Slavery was the first human rights issue to arouse wide international concern yet it still continues today. Slavery like practices remains a grave and persistent problem today.

The mandate on contemporary forms of slavery includes but is not limited to issues such as: debt bondage, serfdom, forced labour, child slavery, sexual slavery, forced or early marriages and the sale of wives. As a legally permitted labour system, traditional slavery has been abolished everywhere, but it has not been completely stamped out.

There are still reports of slave markets. Even when abolished, slavery leaves traces. It can persist as a state of mind- among victims and their descendants and among the inheritors of those who practised it –long after it has formally ended.

Slavery-like practices are often clandestine. This makes it difficult to have a clear picture of the scale of the contemporary slavery, let alone to uncover, punish or eliminate it.

The majority of those who suffer are the poorest, most vulnerable and marginalised social groups in society. Fear, ignorance of one’s rights and the need to survive do not encourage them to speak out.

In order to effectively eradicate slavery in all its forms, the root causes of slavery such as poverty, social exclusion and all forms of discrimination must be addressed. In addition, we need to promote and protect the rights of all especially the most vulnerable in our society. Where human rights violations have already been committed, we are called upon to help restore the dignity of victims. http://www.ohchr.org/…/srslavery/pages/srslaveryindex.aspx

 

by Tim Andrews on 16 May, 2014

We the undersigned are asking that the Australian Senate & the Australian Federal Government review the entire current Child Support system and create a new system that employs enough workers so that each case can be properly assessed individually.

The amount payable to the other guardian of the child/children needs to be assessed on a case by case basis. We the undersigned would like the costs of each child to be equally shared between each of the biological parents 50/50. The current Income formula needs to be reviewed and capped at a fair and reasonable to be determined rate for the average income in Australia.

If access is denied to the paying parent (Unless due to a legitimate proven danger to the child) payments shall be reduced to a minimum until such time as a visitation arrangement can be made to allow access to that said child/children.

If the paying parent has attempted to start another family with other children, those children in the new family shall be calculated by CSA the same as the child/children they are paying Child support for.