LANDMARK laws that promote equal parenting time for separated couples are emotionally damaging children, according to lawyers and psychologists.
Brisbane-based former Family Court judge Tim Carmody has branded the push towards shared parental responsibility and 50-50 parenting time “a failure”.
He said the onus to apply equal shared parenting orders was part of the reason he resigned from the bench in July.
“It created a real crisis for me,” Mr Carmody said. “I just couldn’t keep doing it.”
The orders appear to fly in the face of exceptions to the legislation, such as family violence or when equal time with parents is not “reasonably practicable”.
Melbourne child psychologist Jennifer McIntosh said children in 50-50 care risked developing higher than average levels of sadness, anxiety, clinginess and other mental health problems.
She said equal-time parenting could be especially damaging for children under three.
“I recently had a case of a two-year-old in week-about care, whose parents couldn’t even agree what daycare centre the child went to,” Dr McIntosh said.
“They both work full-time. So the child goes not only between the two houses but two day-care centres.
“The fragmentation of this little boy was significant.”
Mr Carmody, SC, who has returned to the private bar after serving the Family Court for five years, said only 5 per cent of couples continued to trial after filing to the courts over child custody.
They amounted to the most hostile of marriage or de facto breakdowns.
Yet, under the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act, judicial orders for these couples must apply a presumption that “equal shared parental responsibility” is in the best interests of a child.
The changes - introduced by the Howard government in 2006 to assuage concerns about absent fathers - mean both parents are legally bound to jointly attempt to make “major long-term decisions” about their children’s care, welfare and development.
Fifty-fifty parenting time is not automatic. But when equal shared parental responsibility is imposed, Mr Carmody says the court is required to “favourably” consider a further order that a child spend equal time with each of the parents.
The amendments were flawed because highly conflicted former partners never co-operated on decisions, Mr Carmody said.
He called for a “non-presumptive best interest-based solution”.
“In most cases, (that) would be in a single principal place of residence (with children) spending more time with mothers than fathers,” Mr Carmody said.
“For most people (in the past), that worked. Even though dads didn’t like it and grumbled about it, it worked even for them.”
Family litigation is mostly a Commonwealth matter, determined in either the Federal Magistrate’s Court or the Family Court of Australia.
5 responses so far ↓
1 TracieFrendo@yahoo.com // Nov 10, 2008 at 7:33 pm
What kind of crap is this? One example and they’re ready to throw it out the window. The problem isn’t the Law, it’s the two people who can’t agree on anything. That’s where the court picks one childcare. It will depend on the stability of both parents as well. I think that just throwing the child to one parent doesn’t solve anything, but is yet another excuse to support aruging and fighting amongst the people. I was always taught at work to stop complaining about the problem and provide a solution. Ahh is it to hard for the poor little overpaid system to come up with an actual idea or solution to resolve it? I guess when they make soo much money collecting child support it is. What is now? For every dollar they collect they get a dollar? Well they hire agencies for that, but you get my point. Figure it out and quit whining is what I say. It shouldn’t mean we should go on supporting injustice.
2 bigpopa5867 // Nov 11, 2008 at 11:31 pm
The entire idea is a load of bull crap. How do kids spend 50% of their time each day in school and/or daycare without developing mental distress. This is just another liberal attempt to try to give the mother control of the children and increase the amount fathers pay in support.
I see my kids every other weekend and my oldest daughter and I share counseling sessions due to her emotional problem.
The big problem is when the children are in-charge of visitation. Spending too much time with either parent is bad because the children will try to take advantage of the parent with the least visitation time. Likewise, the parent with less visitation time usually spends time catering to the children so they will want to return.
3 Merck // Nov 22, 2008 at 8:17 am
“He called for a “non-presumptive best interest-based solution”.
“In most cases, (that) would be in a single principal place of residence (with children) spending more time with mothers than fathers,” Mr Carmody said.
“For most people (in the past), that worked. Even though dads didn’t like it and grumbled about it, it worked even for them.”
_______________________________
The best interests of the child statistically favor placement with the father. Children raised exclusively by fathers, statistically, turn out much better than children raised exclusively by the mother.
In most cases this would work for everyone involved. Even though mothers would grumble about it, it would even work for them.
Even though this is the case …
Take primary custody away from mothers in the “child’s best interests”, (this would truly be in the child’s best interests) and mothers would still beat the courthouse door down begging for equal custody.
The best interests of the parents, and the child, are served by equal custody first, primary placement with the father second, and primary placement with the mother as a last resort.
Women tend to use children as a power base. Men are far less likely to use children this way. Far fewer men would deny a mother equal time with the children than the reverse.
4 tm99us // Dec 28, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Dec. 19,2008
Double Dipping Mother
CSEA (Child Support Enforcement Agency) has harassed, allowed and also has the courts enforcing my Ex to double dip monetarily. By the CSEA formula the children should receive support at 740 a month. My kids already receive about 1100 in child support in the form of adoption subsidies. All CSEA said they would do is figure it into her income (self-preservation). Even though we had both adopted them and have shared parenting. Their formula will still enable her to abuse the system, I will still owe 4-500 a month. My Ex will get 1600 when CSEA says she should get 740.
I have just lost my job of 19 years. The lack of rules and laws that govern the CSEA made me destitute. The (CSEA) have driven this Dad to relinquish his house and file for bankruptcy with no remorse. When going into the CSEA building for Lorain County there is a BIG sign stating FATHERS HAVE RIGHTS [What a Joke!!]. A father should have civil rights be able to live a half way decent life and be able to not be thrown into poverty. I live now in the basement with my sister.
Ex is receiving 1100 and 900 because CSEA put me in arrears, totaling 2000. I lose my house, bankruptcy and now job. No one cares I have e-mailed the Senator, Representative, Governor, Washington, CSEA, Newspapers, Television, Radio and too many more to remember. I am trying to Ad Populum, because hopefully in the future someone might not make the same mistake I did marrying someone who uses the system.
“We believe that these measures all violate the constitutionally guaranteed civil rights of tens of thousands of fathers and other non-custodial parents. The specific rights violated include the right to equal protection, to due process, the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and arbitrary fines and penalties”. http://www.ancpr.org
EXAMPLE- In 1990, Lockheed employee and divorced father Bobby Sherrill was captured in Kuwait and spent nearly five harrowing months as an Iraqi hostage. The night after his release Mr. Sherrill was arrested for not paying $1,425 in child support while he was a hostage. [lack of governing laws]
Thank you for you time
IKE
Lorain, OH.
p.s. You can put the name IKE and list my alternate e-mail tm99us@yahoo.com
5 tm99us // Dec 28, 2008 at 10:07 pm
In June 2006 our divorce she claimed to need no support, because she received the whole subsidies check. I was seeing them 43% of the time also. In Sept. 2006 she went to the courts and said my father molested them. They through it out did not even ask them or my dad any questions, after speaking to me and hearing all the stuff they she has pulled it dropped. At that time though they took my rights to see my children for 4 months said I didn’t keep them safe in my care. I only see them now about 1 every other week, because now they don’t want to come over and my dad was lucky I was a witness. I don’t want to go through the same thing, so I cannot force her or the same thing will happen to me.
You must log in to post a comment.