The Australian: Family Court gets fathers’ perspective [September 20, 2005]
Caroline Overington, Social affairs writer
September 20, 2005
THE Family Court has been talking to men’s rights groups in an effort to become more “father-friendly”.

The court is also making staff who deal with families undergo training to help them better understand the male perspective in divorce.

The initiatives were introduced by the court’s new Chief Justice, Diana Bryant, who is considered by men’s groups to be more sympathetic to their concerns than former chief justice Alastair Nicholson.

Sue Price of the Men’s Rights Agency, who attended the most recent meeting in Brisbane on Thursday, said: “We were a bit taken aback when we were asked (to attend the forum) because the Family Court has pretty much ignored the way men feel.”

The meeting was attended by representatives of the court, the Child Support Agency, Relationships Australia, Catholic welfare agency Centacare, and men’s groups. “We got out the butcher’s paper and the whiteboards and we really talked about how we could make the system work better for men,” Ms Price said.

“We discussed the fairness of the court decisions, and why the court seemed to regard fathers as the lesser parents. We asked why fathers should be made to feel like criminals. It was extremely productive.”

Ms Price said Justice Bryant did not attend the meeting “but we spoke before she took over the court (last year) and I have the greatest respect for her”.

“It’s obvious that she wants to co-operate with men’s groups and make the court more men-friendly,” she said.

Andrew Chudleigh, who is a consultant and adviser to the Family Court on men’s issues, said the forums were “a way to pull all these players — the Government, the court, and the men’s groups — together, so they could voice their concerns.”

He said the Family Court wanted to “educate the community about how the court works, and help them understand that the court doesn’t make the law”.

The Family Court’s director of client services, Jennie Cooke, said the discussions were consistent with the court’s stated aim of “understanding the needs of all its clients”.

Terry Melvin of Mensline, who attended the first meeting in Sydney in June, said: ” The Family Court comes in for quite a bit of criticism from men’s groups and we thought that this was a way to build a connection.

“It was the first toe in the water, to start to build those links.”

The Family Court has been criticised by men’s groups almost since inception. Melbourne university historian John Hirst published a 28,000-word attack on the court in the March Quarterly Essay, saying it was biased against men, who were routinely denied access to their children.