Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Parents behaving badly

By Barbara Biggs - posted Monday, 8 March 2010


After the fallout of the three reviews of the Family Law Act 2006 shared parenting amendments, I can only thank God our constitution stipulates a separation of powers between government and the judiciary.

Chief Justice Diana Bryant has showed leadership in stepping up to the plate to protect children where the government has so far failed to do so after being threatened with losing votes in marginal electorates if they do.

Following tens of thousands of interviews the findings showed while shared parenting is working well in most cases, in 20 to 30 per cent of relationships involving entrenched conflict children can be put at risk because of existing laws.

Advertisement

For the Attorney-General, who ordered the Chisholm Review following the tragic death of four-year-old Darcey Freeman from the Westgate Bridge, it seems, votes count more than children’s safety.

In an act exactly mirroring the findings of one review - that parent’s rights are favoured over safety of children under the current law - father’s rights groups have threatened to mobilise their members against the Labor Party if the laws are changed to better protect children.

Fearing being put in such a position, and in a clever move, Attorney-General Robert McClelland released all three hefty reports at once rather than have the media scrutinise each one.

Then he said, despite the findings that allegations of abuse and violence were being discouraged under the present act, he said it was all a “misunderstanding” which could be fixed by the education of the judiciary.

It’s certainly true judges need educating, with one in a recent case indicating he thought emotional abuse of a child was nonsense and she would not remember it when she grew up anyway.

The National Council for Children Post-Separation (NCCPS) heard a good example of emotional abuse just this week. It involved a four-year-old whose teachers, on the third day after starting school, recommended she have counselling because of self-harming behaviours. The child is unable to be taken for therapy because the other parent has refused to agree to it.

Advertisement

However, children dying and being seriously physically abused is more than a misunderstanding and can’t be simply brushed aside as namby pamby nonsense.

Chief Justice Bryant was appointed by the Liberal Party which brought in the new, hastily prepared shared parenting amendments before an election. Her journey in this matter has been interesting and, ultimately, commendable.

Early last year the Chief Justice categorically stood by the new amendments, even after the shock of Darcey Freeman’s death. But as public pressure and sentiment mounted, culminating in a national protest by the NCCPS on May 3, she wrote to the Attorney-General saying urgent changes were needed.

Now, having had a chance to digest the three reviews, she has gone further than anyone else. Those in entrenched conflict separations with cases pending, either before the courts or in mediation, will be grateful for her latest recommendation that information from mediation sessions be provided to the Courts for consideration.

Previously, no matter how badly parents behaved in mediation, the proceedings were confidential. Often mediations occur over many sessions so a mediator sees the parties far more often and more candidly than a judge who decides the outcome should it reach Court.

The NCCPS has heard of shocking bullying in mediation sessions, none of which was able to be reported to the Court.

Changing a deeply held view takes humility, honesty and integrity.

One can only wonder if this is a luxury open only to those whose can’t be voted out of office.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

57 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Barbara Biggs is a former journalist and author of a two-part autobiography, In Moral Danger and The Road Home, launched in May 2004 by Peter Hollingworth and Chat Room in 2006. Her latest book is Sex and Money: How to Get More. Barbara is convenor of the National Council for Children Post-Separation, www.nccps.org.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Barbara Biggs

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Barbara Biggs
Article Tools
Comment 57 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy