Disenfranchised fathers still unequal when it comes to child custody

Coalition Committee members, when challenged about their poor response to the evidence put before them, claimed a need to reach consensus with their Labor colleagues to ensure passage of legislative changes through the Senate. Since when has the Coalition felt a need to come to unanimous agreement with the opposition, especially in the face of a new election that may change the balance in the Senate anyway?

The final disappointment of this whole charade is the Howard Government’s attempt to dupe the fathers of Australia into believing the introduction of “shared parental responsibility” is a new concept that will give them equal shared care of their children.

Shared parental responsibility has been included in the Family Law Act since the concept of “guardianship” which inferred “parental rights” was removed in 1995. At the same time all reference to parental rights itself, despite the Australian Constitution clearly acknowledging the existence of those rights, was also removed, thereby leaving our children to the mercies of the sole arbiter, the Chief Justice of the Family Court.

Included in Howard’s 4-page framework statement is a proposal to introduce 65 Family Relationship Centres, believed to be modelled, on the Canadian equivalent - Family Justices Centres. Reports from Canada indicate the only people successfully using these centres are those prepared to be fair with each other. Unless parents are prepared to acknowledge that the other parent is equally important in their child’s life there is little hope they will acquiesce during the allocated three counselling sessions. Often too much is at stake financially to concede parenting time to the other parent. Shared care reduces the amount of child support paid as it should do and also reduces the likelihood of an unequal distribution of property.

Despite promises to monitor the calibre of staff employed in the centres most realise this is an impossible task. Within two days of the announcement being made, a self-confessed pro-feminist social worker said she would apply for a job in the new centres because the pay would be better and she would have an opportunity to ensure justice for women.

Without a foundation in law that both parents have a right to be a parent and to be regarded as equal in all respects to their children then the existing dogma will continue. Legislation is needed to support and acknowledge such a significant change and previous precedents, set when expectations supported “sole mother custody” or “primary carer” preference, should be disqualified from further use.

Using the concept of the "best interest of the child" as paramount may take the moral high ground, but could be regarded as foolish. One cannot separate a child’s interest from those of its parents, other siblings and other family members. Parents, separated or not, are the people best able to make those decisions and balance the competing “best interests” of all parties.

Yet the Family Court clings to this principle as their justification for the removal of parents from their children’s lives. There is every reason to suspect one of the difficulties facing parents now is how to raise children who are unselfish and are considerate of others needs, when children are being given the message that their best interests override all others and their parents have no right to tell them what to do!

Canadian social scientist K.C. Wilson suggests, in his book Co-parenting for Everyone, that children have only two rights as follows. His suggestion does not diminish the protection of children:

1. The same right as any member of society to freedom from abuse and exploitation. This does not require new laws, but applying those we have. You often hear, “Children are our future”. Not true. They are part of society now and deserve that consideration.
2. The right to its entire family. The right to the advocacy and care and nurturing of both its parents equally, and through them the parent’s families. Why should the parent’s marital status have anything to do with this?

Children certainly have rights, but so do others and rights afforded to any person should not inflict disadvantage on another when they exercise those rights. If we wish to raise children who are able to contribute to our society we should be teaching them how to live with others, not elevating their status above all others.

Without legislative change, more fathers will take their own lives - currently it is estimated that more than 24 a week do - and more children will grow up without the benefit of having both parents to guide and nurture their progress to adulthood.

The Howard Government has inexplicably failed to secure lasting change for the benefit of both parents and their children. In the final analysis many are convinced the Committee of Inquiry was nothing more than an elaborate ploy to silence the growing anger of disenfranchised fathers. At this time change is nothing more than a four-page statement and a promise to look at the fairness or not of the child support scheme in the future!