The myths about shared parenting

Another objection is that compulsory mediation may force separated parents, especially women, to negotiate with abusive former partners, and to agree to parenting arrangements that are not safe for them or their children.

This is not true and has never been true. No mediator or mediation agency will conduct a mediation session when family relationships are seriously affected by violence or abuse. In such instances, mediation is always seen to be inappropriate. The new family law provisions specifically exclude mediation in such cases.

Nor do mediators permit parties to agree to unsafe parenting arrangements. While entry into mediation may be required, remaining in the mediation session is voluntary, as is agreement to any proposals. Moreover, the parties have access to legal advice, either during the mediation or before signing any mediated agreement.

Such mischievous nonsense shields deeper currents. The opposition to reform from lawyers can only be motivated by professional and financial insecurity. Over 50 per cent of couples currently sort out their own post-divorce arrangements with little or no recourse to the law. With increasing education and the realisation that such a process can be achieved without paying $300-500 an hour to a lawyer, this trend is set to continue. In 10 years' time will there be any work left for the generalist family lawyer? I doubt it. And if the government’s programs of legislative reforms and community education are properly supported, I can envisage that the services of many family court judges will no longer be required.

The brayings of feminist groups are rooted in a similar anxiety for self-preservation and in the feminist myth. Their support for the present system reveals a concern about power and money: if mothers share the parenting of children, it follows inevitably that they will have to share control of the family and of the resources that come with it, i.e. the home and financial support.

The need revealed by women’s groups for funding and resources to support abused women and children is well established and accepted. Not so, however, is the radical position that this is the lot of most women and children, particularly in the aftermath of separation or divorce. Radical feminism has done a disservice to women. It has sought to portray them as poor, suffering creatures that need protection from men and from paternalistic institutions. They are unable to speak confidently for themselves, to make their own choices, and are easily led into negotiations where their will and interests are overborne. Such thinking is a grave insult to the majority of women.

Ask any experienced mediator who carries the power in a mediation: almost inevitably the mother with the children.

The government is to be congratulated on having the courage and energy to effect a new system of family law and practice so soundly based on reliable research and the aspirations of right-thinking men and women. If enacted, funded and supported by community education, it will bring enormous benefits to mothers, fathers and children.