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


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.


RSS 2.0

Towards Better Outcomes for Children

By Charles Pragnell - posted Thursday, 2 December 2010

The Family Law (Shared Parenting) Act 2006 was a retrograde and regressive step back in the history of family law as it returned to Victorian attitudes that children were mere "Goods and Chattels" of parents and they were possessions to be divided up along with the other parental assets such as house, cars, furnishings, monies etc when a couple separated.

Children were to be "shared out" either by parental agreement or by a Court on an equal or on a percentage time basis and which took no account of children's physical, emotional, educational, or social needs.

Children were given little, if any, say in decision-making processes affecting their lives. Although they are ostensibly represented in the proceedings by an Independent Children's Lawyer [ICL], anecdotal evidence demonstrates that children have sometimes not been seen and talked to by the ICL, or if they did, that their views were simply dismissed and not presented to the Courts.


Rarely are children's wishes and feelings presented directly to the Family Courts. In such circumstances, some children have gone as far as to prepare their own affidavits representing their own views directly to the Court, only to have such affidavits summarily dismissed by Judges as irrelevant to proceedings. Other children have sought to instruct a lawyer of their own choosing but such moves have been quickly negated by the interventions of the ICLs.

If children have protested that they had been abused by a parent they have not been believed as a counter claim is made by the accused parent that the other parent has "coached" them into such allegations, or has otherwise "alienated" them against the accused parent.

For many years a fake theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome was used in Family Courts to support such an assertion but eventually this has been exposed as having no basis in scientifically conducted research and was in fact a promotion by a psychologist with sympathies towards paedophile behaviours.

The question of self-induced alienation by parents has never been explored by Family Courts, where children have well-founded reasons for not liking a parent because of that parent's behaviours and attitudes towards them and therefore the children opposed living with or having contact with that parent and were forced into such arrangements against their will.

If they have refused or protested, they have been manhandled by police and forced into returning to the parent they detest and the other parent blamed for inciting them to resist returning to the other parent.

Yes children can lie on occasions to get the best outcomes for themselves, just as adults do and some adults have been prepared to perjure themselves to Family Reporters and ICLs and even to Courts, to obtain the most favourable outcomes for themselves. Children are not as easy to manipulate as some parental rights enthusiasts claim, as any parent who has argued with a determined three year old whether to buy a bar of chocolate in a supermarket, would testify.


Clearly the Family Law (Shared Parenting) Act has not been in the interests of children either in its content or its interpretations by Family Courts and in many instances there has been evidence of adultism (the failure to respect and uphold children's rights) and in some occasions there have been clear violations of children's rights under International Conventions to which this country is a signatory.

There is now a great deal of research evidence that children suffer abuse during instances of domestic violence and it is very welcome to see in the proposed legislative amendments that this is recognised and that much greater attention will be given to taking into account such instances in future Family Law proceedings.

However, there have been clear statements by the Chief Justice Diane Bryant in the recent past that Family Courts do not have the expertise nor the resources to thoroughly and competently investigate allegations of domestic violence and child abuse, and State child protection authorities with the necessary expertise and resources have been extremely reluctant to engage in investigating such allegations when they are made to Family Courts.

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

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

78 posts so far.

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

About the Author

Charles Pragnell is Specialist Adviser on Child Protection and Children’s Rights to the National Council for Children Post Separation

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Charles Pragnell

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

Article Tools
Comment 78 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy