family services australia - parliament of australia€¦ · nurturing shared parenting. 1...

House of Representatives Standing Committee

on Family end Community Affairs

Submission No 10223Date Received

Secretary:

Family Services Australiaworking together with families

August 2003

The largest national Industry Representative Body for the community based family and relationships services sectorFamily Services Australia P0 Box 326 Deakin West ACT 2600

t: 0262811788 ft 0262811794 e: [email protected] www.fsa.org.au

____ FSA Submission to Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangement -. August 2003

Contents Page

1. ExecutiveSummary(including List of recommendations) 3

2. AboutFamily ServicesAustralia 52.1 The relationshipof thework of the FSA membershipto the

Terms of Referenceof the Inquiry 6

3. Generalobservations3.1 Thetitle of the inquiry 83.2 Thedifferencebetween‘Custody’ and‘Residence’ 93.3 Joint ‘Custody’ andthe divorceprocess 9

4. Factorswhich shouldbe takeninto accountin decidingthe respectivetimeeachparentshouldspendwith their children4.1 Focuson children 104.2 Parental‘rights’ andresponsibilities 124.3 Children‘s views on sharedresidence 134.4 Theeffectivenessofjoint parentingarrangements 164.5 Thesignificanceof attachment 174.6 A presumptionofequaltime and issuesof domesticviolence 184.7 The practicalitiesof an assumptionof equaltime 194.8 Cultural issues 21

5. Conclusion 23

6. References 25

____ FSA Submission to Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangement -. August 2~O3gOMOp•~

1. Executive Summary

This submissionto the Houseof RepresentativesFamilyAnd CommunityAffairsCommitteeInquiry into Child CustodyArrangementsin theEventof Family Separationhasbeenpreparedon behalfof Family ServicesAustralia(FSA), the largestnationalIndustryRepresentativeBody andmemberassociationof providersof family relationshipservicesand otherfamily supportservices.

pjFSA notesthat thecurrentprovisionsof theAustralianFamilyLaw ReformAct 1995alreadyprovidefor anarrangementwherechildren mayspendequaltime with eachparentif thefamily wishes. Thefact that fewAustralianfamilies currentlychoosethisarrangementindicatesthat a rebuttablepresumptionwould imposean arrangementupon families that the majority will not accept. Statisticsprovidedfrom theChildSupportAgency(CSA) indicatethat“the numberof families sharingcaremore than30%of thetime is a small componentof the totalCSA caseload”(Child SupportAgency 2003).Moreoverresearchandthe experienceof FSA memberorganisationsindicatesthatwhereparentshavesignificantlevelsof conflict betweenthem, anarrangementwherechildrenspendequaltime with eachwill bedetrimentalto all family members,in termsofemotional,psychologicalandphysicalwell-being.

FSAalso notesthe currentprovisionsof theAct providefor thepracticeof law wherechildrenareconsideredasindependentbeings,wherechildren haverightsand parentsresponsibilityfor their nurtureand care. TheFamilyLawReformAct 1995changedthelanguageto reflecta significantshift towardsa perceptionof childrenasindependentbeings,not ownedby parentsbut for whom parentshaveresponsibility,and anyconsiderationof ‘custody’ is now inappropriate,irrelevantand incorrectat law.

The four key principlesof theAustralianFamily Law ReformAct 1995clearlyestablishthe ‘bestinterests’of the child asparamountin family law proceedings.Theseprinciplesare that:

• childrenhavea right to know and becaredfor by both their parents,regardlessofwhethertheir parentsaremarried, separated,havenevermarriedor haveneverlivedtogether;and

• childrenhavea right of contact,on a regularbasis,with both their parents,andwithotherpeoplesignificantto their care,welfareanddevelopment;and

• parentssharedutiesandresponsibilitiesconcerningthe care,welfareanddevelopmentof their children; and

• parentsshouldagreeaboutthefutureparentingof their children.

FSA supportsthe positionof theFamily Law ReformAct 1995, andremindsthe Inquirythat actingin thebestinterestsof childrenimplies thattheywill be directly consulted,their opinionslistenedto and actedupon. Adult perceptionsof achild’s bestinterestsarerarely accuratewhenchildren themselvesarenot consulted.

FSA’s memberorganisationsagreewith the commentsof otherswho havesubmittedtothe Inquiry, that a rebuttablepresumptionthat childrenwill spendequaltimewith eachparenthasthe potentialto createdifficulties for families in theimplementationof suchan arrangement.The conceptof a rebuttablepresumptionof this kind appearsorientedtoward theneedsof parentsratherthan thoseof children. It ignorestheuniquenessofAustralianfamilies andtreatsthem in a universalmanner.Cultural and societalfactorsare ignoredin this approach,asare the experiencesofvictims of domesticviolence.Arebuttablepresumptionthat childrenwill spendequaltime with eachparentfollowing

FSA Submission to Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangement -. August 2003“em.’,

separationhasthepotential to keepvictims of violencein a situationthat remainsdangerous.

FSA, informedby theexperienceof memberorganisationsandresearchof whatworks toenableparentsto maintain functionaland nurturingcontactpostseparation,urgesthisInquiry to alsoconsiderthe successfulservicesthat supportAustralianfamilies in thiscontext. Strengtheningtheseservicesis thebestapproachto assistingfamilies maintainnurturingcontact.

This submissionaddressestheseissuesin greaterdetailandmakesthefollowingrecommendations.

LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS

PSArecommendsthatthe Inquiry:

1. Hears and considersthe voicesof children in its deliberations, with theprimefocuson achievingbetteroutcomesfor childrenratherthanfor parents.

2. Considerchildren as contributors to their own lives ratherthanmererecipientsofadult ‘care,’ protectionand decision-makingprocesses.

3. Consult children — both thosewho haveexperiencedajoint residencearrangementandthosewho havenot — in thepreparationof its reporton a presumptionthatchildren spendequaltime with eachparent.

4. Exploreother avenuesof involving children in decision-makingprocessesfollowingtheir parents’separation.

5. Notesthe effectivenessof the current provisions within the Family Law ReformAct 1995 andtheir applicationfor familieswherejoint parentingarrangementswillwork, notingthat theAct providesnow forjoint parentingwhich caninclude sharedliving arrangements.

6. Carefully considertheresearchon children’s attachment to significant others.

7. Carefully considerissuesof domesticviolence in determiningthe advisability ofchildrenspendingequaltime with bothparentsfollowing separation.

8. Considerissuesrelatingto parental flexibility, level of communication betweentheparents,andparents’residencearrangements in decidingon theadvisabilityof apresumptionthat childrenwill spendequaltimewith both parents.

9. Consultwidely with differentcultural groups within Australiato determinetheapplicability of anassumptionofjoint residenceto their own valueandbeliefsystems.

10.Recognisestheneedfor expanding the delivery of serviceswhich haveprovento beeffectivein assistingparentspostdivorceor separationto establisheffective,nurturingsharedparenting.

1 1.Considerthe developmentof further effectiveparenting skills programs and supportservices,and seekfunding for theseprogramsto be developedasa matterofurgency.Programsshouldbe availablefor parentsfrom the time of pregnancythroughthefamily andchild life cycle, arid especiallybothpre- andpost-separation.

K>____ FSA Submission to Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangement -. August 2003

2. About Family ServicesAustralia

FSA wasformedin 1994,and is fundedthroughmembershipfeesandby theCommonwealthFamily RelationshipsServicesProgram(FRSP),which is administeredbythe Departmentof Family and CommunityServices(FaCS). Fundingfor theFRSPisappropriatedboth throughthe FederalAttorney-General’sDepartmentand FaCS.

FSA has70 nationalmemberorganisationslocatedin over250 sitesin city, suburban,regionalandrural areasthroughoutAustralia. Theorganisationsarediversein sizeandin their relationshipto a broadrangeof not-for-profit communitywelfareorganisations.Theymaybe, for example,associatedwith a CommunityLegal Centre,be anindependentcommunitybasedincorporatedassociationor company,or part of a largechurchnetwork.

Our memberorganisationsprovidecoreservicesaroundAustraliaand acrossall of theserviceactivities in the FRSP. TheseservicesincludeFamily RelationshipsCounselling;Family RelationshipsMediation; Children’s ContactServices; ContactOrdersProgram;Menand Family RelationshipsServices;Family RelationshipsEducation; FamilyRelationshipsSkills Training; AdolescentMediation andFamily Therapy; SpecialisedFamily Violence Services; andRural andRegionalPrimaryDisputeResolution. FSAmembershavedirectcontractswith and providedirectservicesto theFamily Courtandthe FederalMagistratesService.

SomeFSA memberorganisationsonly provideservicesfundedby the FRSP;othersofferan extendedrangeof communityandwelfareservicesfundedthroughotherCommonwealthand Stateprogramsandothersources.Servicesinclude:otherfamilysupportservices;residentialand communitycare; servicesto personswith a disability;drugandalcoholabusecounselling;supportand rehabilitation;alternativecareprograms;supportedandcrisis accommodation;youthhealth;financial counselling;unemploymentprograms;out of schoolcare; specialisteducationprograms;emergencyrelief; domesticviolenceand sexualabusecounsellingprograms;multicultural andnon-Englishspeakingservices;refugeeandmigrantaccommodation,placementandsupport;tortureand traumacounselling;and rural andremoteprograms.

FSA andits memberorganisationsarecommittedto theprovision of servicesthatareaccessibleto all families andindividualsthroughoutAustraliaandwhich strengthenandsustainindividuals,couplesand families in all their diversity, enablingthem to livewithin communitieswhich contributeto the well-beingof all.

In recentyears,FSA’s memberorganisationshavebeeninstrumentalin establishingandbuilding practicesthataddressthe specific needsof children in arespectfulandinclusivemanner.We haverespondedto two significanteventsin developingeffectiveandtimely programsthat meettheuniqueneedsof children,andwhich aresalienttothis Inquiry. Theseeventswere Australia’sratification of the UnitedNationsConventionon theRights of the Child in 1990, indicatingouragreementto improveconditionsfor ourchildren,andthe 1995 reformsto theAustralianFamily Law Act 1975. FSA recognisesits responsibilityto ensurethatAustralia’schildren receivethe bestopportunitiespossiblewhile theygrow, and that their rightsaspeoplearesupported.

In thepast, FSAhasrespondedto a numberofInquiries andGovernmentinitiatives inrelationto family law matterswhich leadto thereportsknown asTo haveand to hold —

Strategiesto strengthenmarriageand relationships 1998 (theAndrewsReport),TheDeliveryofPrimary DisputeResolutionServicesin Family Law 1997, andOut of theMaze— Pathwaysto theFuturefor FamiliesExperiencingSeparation2001.

____ FSA Submission to Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangement -. August 2003____ H..

FSA’s leadershiprole in the family servicessectoris reflectedin this submissionwhichdrawson both the significantexpertiseandexperienceof FSA’s memberorganisationsinworkingwith families acrossa wide spectrumof issuesandourcommitmenttoimproving thepositionof familiesandchildrenwithin Australiansociety.

2.1. The Relationship of the work of the FSA’s membershipto the Terms ofReferenceof the Inquiry.

The FSA nationalnetworkof 70 communityorganisationsprovideservicesacrossthe fullrangeof Commonwealthfundedserviceswhich supportfamiliesprior to, during andpostseparationanddivorce. More specificallyfor example,the FSA networkis the largestproviderof ChildrensContactServices,the ContactOrdersPrograminitiative(UnitingCareUnifam’s KeepingContact,AnglicareWA’s Mumsand DadsForever), theMenandFamily RelationshipsProgram’sServices,Family RelationshipEducationandFamily RelationshipsSkills Training.

Therearethreesalientfacts in relationto both this Inquiry andto the deliveryof theseserviceson the ground:• Overallgovernmentfundingfor theFamily RelationshipsServicesProgramhas

declinedin realterms since1998 andagenciesarerunningdeficit budgetsandbrarehavingto reducethe numberof clients servicesin order to stayviable;

• servicesdealingwith issuesofjoint! sharedparentingare in high demandandhavelong waiting lists; and

• formalevaluationof theseservicesidentifies their high degreeof success.1

In termsof this inquiry the relevanceof thefactsaboveare that whathasshownto beworking to facilitateactive sharedparentingareserviceslike the ContactOrdersProgram. This submissionwill refer to the concernthat arebuttablenotion ofjointcustodydoesnot focuson the relationshipskills that,whenenhanced,have beenprovento be at the coreof facilitatingpositivejoint/sharedparenting. Theseservicesprovidethe way forwardto helpseparatedparentsdevelopongoing, positivecontactrelationshipsandmaintainnon adversarialregularcontact. This Inquiry representsan importantopportunity to highlight the effectivenessof thesedeveloping,andasexternallyevaluated,successfulservices.

Thefocusof this submissionhoweveris mainly concernedwith Part (a) of the Inquiry’sTermsof Reference,namely:

1 Evaluationof the ContactOrdersProgram,ExecutiveSummary,May 2003: Over70%ofclients reportedreceivinga positivebenefitfrom attendingtheProgram. Programpractitionersreporteda similar rate ofclients benefitingfromparticipating. “This is thetypeofresultmanysocialprogramswould like to beable to report.l” Theyareespeciallypleasingfor this clientgroup, consideringthe difficultiestheyhavehad with contactwiththeir children.

TheProgram helpsveryconflictedadults movetowardsa moreco-operativestanceaboutchild contactwith theirformerpartners. Benefitsinclude learning aboutthepositivesofparentingand communicationskills. Evenin a situation wherethechild contactoutcomeisnot whata parentwants, theProgramhelpsthatparentmoveon to anotherstagein lifewherefurther litigation is unlikely. Clientsdescribethe Programas ‘a lifeline’ and ashaving ‘savedour lives’. Manyare in favourof theProgram beingmademandatoryforseparatingparents.

FSA Submission to Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangement -. August 2003

(a) Given that the bestinterestsof thechild are the paramountconsideration:

i. whatother factors shouldbe takeninto accountin decidingthe respectivetimeeachparentshouldspendwith their children postseparation,in particularwhetherthereshouldbe a presumptionthatchildren will spendequaltime witheachparentand, if so, in whatcircumstancessucha presumptioncouldberebutted;and

11. in whatcircumstancesa court shouldorderthat childrenof separatedparentshavecontactwith otherpersons,includingtheir grandparents.

The submissionwill first considera numberof generalissuesin relationto thetermsofreferencebeforeaddressingspecific mattersarisingfrom thequestionsposedabove.

PSA Submission to Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangement -. August 2003j.oN.~CO EON

3. General Observations

The Family LawReform Act 1995changed the languageto reflect a significantshift towards aperception of childrenas independent beings,not owned by parentsbut for whom parentshave responsibility

any consideration of‘custody’ is nowinappropriate,irrelevant and incorrectat law.

To revert to the use ofthe term ‘custody’ atthis stage will be aretrograde step,confusing separatingpeople, their legalrepresentatives andthe court alike.

3.1 The Title of the Inquiry

FSA notesthat this Inquiry addressesissuesof child custody.TheAustralianFamilyLaw ReformAct 1995 abolishedthisterminologyin favourof theterm residence’This changehasimplications for the currentInquiry, in that anyconsiderationofcustodyis now inappropriate,irrelevantandincorrectat law.

The Parliamentarypreparationfor the introductionof the 1995Family Law reformsreferredto the notion of children asbeing‘owned’ by parentsandarguedthat useof the term custodysuggestedthat parentscouldwield powerover eachother through‘ownership’(Chisholm, 1996; Lloyd-Smith & Tarr, 2000). Indeed,a 1998 articlesuggestedthat a “major decision”following parentalseparationconcernsthe question,“Who getsthekids?” (Mullis &Otwell, 1998, p. 103).The Family Law ReformAct 1995changedthe languageto reflecta significantshift towardsa perceptionofchildrenasindependentbeings,not ownedby parentsbut forwhom parentshaveresponsibility(Attorney-Generalof Australia,2001; Chisholm,1996). While the impactof thechangesinterminologyhasbeenminimal, with family lawyersandparentsshowingslownessin acceptingthe philosophiesunderpinningthenewterms(Attorney-Generalof Australia, 2001),experienceinotherjurisdictions indicatesthat it takestime for attitudinalchangesto occur (Tapp & Taylor, 2001).To revert to theuseoftheterm custodyat this stagewill be a retrogradestep,confusingseparatingpeople,their legal representativesandthecourt alike.Chisholm(1996)arguesthat the ‘new concepts’(of residenceandcontact)will succeedif theyareappliedin auniform andstraightforwardmanner.Revertingto the old term custodywill notachievethis in anypositiveway.

Somejurisdictions, suchasthosein AmericaandCanada,referto theconceptof joint legal custody.’This conceptprovidesforparentsto sharetheresponsibilityfor children’scareanddevelopment,and is aseparateconceptto joint physicalcustody,’which relatesto residence.With the 1995changesto theAustralianFamilyLawAct 1975, the conceptof joint legalcustody’ (thesharingof legalresponsibilitiesfor children)wasincorporatedinto the newterminology,and is often referredto assharedor joint parenting.Parentalresponsibilitiesarenow sharedbetweenbothparentsunlessthereis a specific orderthat altersthis arrangement.This meansthat now both parentsshareresponsibilityfor majordecisionsaboutchildren, including thoserelatedto education,health issues,living arrangements,anddailycare.Ideally, parentswill communicatetogetherto decidehowtobestmanagetheseissues.Indeed,the recentFamily LawPathwaysreportOut oftheMaze— Pathwaysto theFutureforFamiliesExperiencingSeparation2001 recommendedthat theGovernmentexplorethe conceptof sharedparenting,


The current AustralianFamily Law Reform Act1995 containsprovisions whichencourage parents toconsider arrangementsthat encompass bothjoint parenting andjoint residence.

Where high levels ofanimosity and conflictalready exist, theburden of ‘proof’ willbuild on the animosity,creating furtherdifficulties for childrenin negotiating theirrelationships with eachparent.

emphasisingcooperationbetweenparents.Joint custodywasnotreferredto in that report.

Where theconflict betweenparentsis so significantthat it isimpossiblefor them to talk togetherin a civil manner,an ordercanbe soughtthat providesfor decisionsto be madeby oneparent(Nicholson,2003). In the majority of families ordersof thistype arenot sought,leavingthe decision-makingtasksto besharedbetweenthe parents.Theconceptofjoint parentalresponsibility(or joint legalcustody’) is thereforea realityformanyparents.Thereis no necessityto changethelegislation inrelationto this issue.

3.2. The Difference Between Custodyand Residence

Centralto anydiscussionaboutjoint custodyor residenceis thedifferencein meaningbetweenthe two concepts.Prior to 1995,the term custodycarriedwith it clear expectationsthat the‘custodial parent’would havespecificresponsibilitiesanddecision-makingtasks,and that the childrenwould residewiththat parent.Underthe 1995 reforms,while thechildrenwill livewith the ‘residentialparent,’that parenthasno specificdecision-makingresponsibilitiesseparatefrom thoseof the ‘non-residential’parent.In otherwords,parentsarenow consideredtohavejoint responsibilitiesfor the children’scareunlessspecifiedundera parentingorder.This conceptcould be referredto asjoint parenting.’As Chisholm(1996)suggests,children maynowbenefitfrom thecourtbeingrestrainedfrom removingresponsibilitiesfrom oneor both parents.

The currentAustralianFamilyLaw ReformAct 1995 containsprovisionswhich encourageparentsto considerarrangementsthat encompassboth joint parentingandjoint residence.Parentscanagreefrom a rangeof possibilitiesin relationto thewayinwhich childrenwill maintaincontactwith eachparentandhowdecisionswill be madefollowing separationand/ordivorce.If theInquiry’s concernsareaboutthe ability of bothparentsto haveinput into decision-makingprocessesin respectof children, thenthe currentreformsadequatelyaddresstheseconcerns.However,if the Inquiry’s concernsarerelatedto theconceptof childrenresidingfor sometime in both parents’homes(theconceptofjoint residence,’ratherthanjoint parentalresponsibility’), therearesomemajor issuesthat must beaddressed.Theywill bediscussedin moredetail later in this submission.

3.3. ‘Joint Custody’ and the Divorce Process

FSA hasconcernsthat a rebuttablepresumptionof joint custody’or ‘residence’could createareturn to high levels of litigation andthe conceptof fault. In orderfor a parentto arguethat thechildren should live with oneparentratherthanmovebetweenthem, s/hewill haveto ‘prove’ at law that the otherparentisunsuitablein somewayandthat contactwith theotherparentwill be inappropriatefor thechildren’sbestinterests.Wherehigh


Recommendation 1FSA recommendsthat the Inquiryhears and considersthe voices of childrenin its deliberations,with the prime focuson achieving betteroutcomes forchildren rather thanfor parents (section4.1).

levelsof animosityandconflict alreadyexist, theburdenof ‘proof’will build on theanimosity,creatingfurtherdifficulties forchildrenin negotiatingtheir relationshipswith eachparent.Areturn to pre-1975attitudesandapproachesto fault divorcecontestscouldresult.

4. Factors which should be taken into account in decidingthe respective time each parent should spend withtheir children

4.1. A Focus on Children

In 1990 theAustralianGovernmentratified the UnitedNationsConventionon theRightsofthe Child (CROC).This instrumenthasfourguidingprinciples,incorporatedin 41 Articles: Non-discrimination, theparamountcyof children’s‘best interests,’rights to survival andappropriatedevelopment,andrights to bothhavean opinion andbe heard.

Muchhasbeenwritten in currentliteratureon the importanceofchildrenthemselvesbeingconsultedaboutdecisionsthat directlyaffect them following their parents’separation(Campbell,2002;Chisholm,2000; Eekelaar,1994; Redman,1997; Taylor, 1998).Honouringchildren’srights necessitatesconsultingthemonissuesthat directly affect them. ESA recommendsthat theInquirycentralisethe voicesof children in its deliberations,with theprime focuson achievingbetteroutcomesfor childrenratherthanfor parents.In commentingon currentAustralianpractices,authorshavearguedthat a focuson parentsandtheir issuesdoeslittle to resolveissuesfor children in an effectivemanner:

TheCourt mustaccesswhatchildrenthink if it is to obtainall theinformationit requiresto makeanorderreflectingreality for all. Thattherhetoricof parentalresponsibilityisaboutparentalrights, especiallytherights ofthe non-residentialparent,is mademoreobviousby thefact thatthechild hasno effectivemeansof enforcingany of the ‘rights’statedin s6OB[ofthe AustralianFamily LawAct] (Taylor,1998, p. 12)(italicsadded).

A focuson childrenrequiresprofessionalsandparentsto placechildren’sissuesat theforefrontof their deliberations.Ratherthandiscuss“the respectivetime eachparentshouldspendwiththeir children,” a child-focussedinquirywould ask“What arethemostbeneficialways in which children mayhavecontactwith eachparent?” Similarly, it would not bepresumedthatchildren willspend“equal time with eachparent;”rather, the specificcircumstancesof eachchild would beconsideredin relation to thebestarrangementsfor her/him.

Recommendation1FSArecommendsthat theInquiry hearsandconsidersthevoicesofchildrenin its deliberations,with theprimefocuson achievingbetteroutcomesfor childrenrather thanfor parents.

FSA Submission to Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangement -. August 2003J.~E.xj~nom.~

Recommendation 2FSA supports thesechildren’s views, andrecommends that theInquiry considerchildren ascontributors to theirown lives rather thanmere recipients ofadult ‘care,~protection anddecision-makingprocesses.Consulting withchildren aboutarrangements fortheir future isconsidered a highpriority (section4.1).

Although the ‘best interests’principlehasa stronghistory in law,it hasbeencriticisedasbeing impreciseandopento adultinterpretationsthat maynot benefitall children (Kelly, 1997)(McWinney, 1997).Manyauthorshavereferredto thediscretionarynatureof the ‘best interests’principle, with familylaw professionalsoftenhavingdifferentconceptsof what ‘bestinterests’are(Kelly, 1997; Landerkin, 1997; Rotman,Tompkins,Schwartz,& Samuels,2000). It hasbeensuggestedthat the onlyway in which a specific child’s bestinterestscanbe determinedisto askthechild him/herself.

Membersof PSA haveover thepastfive yearsdevelopeda numberof effectiveandresponsivechild inclusivepractices.Resultsfromaction researchprojectsrelatingto thesepractices,togetherwithotherresearch,indicatethat childrenfeel significantlymoresatisfiedwith the outcomeof decisionsthat affect themwhentheyarethemselvesinvolved in somewayin the decisions(McIntosh,2000).This researchis supportedby researchundertakenin theUnitedKingdomfor theJosephRowntreeFoundation(Dunn &Deater-Deckard,2001).There,children reportedexperiencingpositive feelingswhentheyhadbeenconsultedaboutlivingarrangementsfor themfollowing theirparents’separation.Theseresultsindicatethe importanceof bothhearingandactinguponchildren’sviews in anydecisionthat will directly affect them.Moreover, childrenthemselvesareaskingthat their opinionsbeheardandactedupon (Campbell,in preparation;Taylor, 1998;Thomas& OKane,1999).In Canada,a 14-year-oldboy felt sostrongly aboutthe needfor parentsto consultwith children abouttheir future residenceandcontactarrangementsthat herodehisbicycle from Albertato Ottawathendownto Washington,D.C., toalert the governmentsof Canadaandthe United Statesto thatneed(Giles, 2002). In a currentAustralianstudy, all childreninterviewedexpressedtheview that they shouldbeconsultedinissuesthat directly affect them, andespeciallyin relation to livingandcontactarrangementsfollowing theirparents’separation(Campbell,in preparation).

Recommendation2FSAsupportsthesechildren’sviews,and recommendsthat theInquiry considerchildrenascontributors to their own lives ratherthanmererecipientsofadult ‘care, ‘protection and decision-makingprocesses.Consultingwith childrenaboutarrangementsfor theirfutureis considereda highpriority.

Identifying (with children contributing) the factorsthat willmaximizechildren’swell beingpost separation(continuingsignificantattachmentsbeingprimary) would diminish thepotential tusslebetweenparents’andchildren’s’ rights. Thismeanstaking accountof:• Stableliving arrangements;• Financialsecurity;• Optimizingeducationaloutcomes;and• Maintainingsignificantattachmentswith family and friends.

FSA Submission to Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangement -. August 2003Jouc E

The United NationsConvention on theRights of the Childpositions children asactive shapers of theirown lives and able tomake decisions(however small)independently ofadults. In this viewparents and otheradults (such asteachers) haveresponsibilities to wardchildren, to help themto grow appropriately,to make positivedecisions about theirown lives, and torealise their fullpotential.

A presumption thatchildren will spendequal time with eachparent ignores therights of children tostructure their owntime for contact,appropriate to their ageand stage ofdevelopment, and todecide for them howthat contact will bemanaged. Moreover, itignores parents’responsibilities toprovide positiveexperiences for childrenregardless of timespent with them.

4.2. Parental ‘Rights’ and Responsibilities

Muchresearchin joint custody’arrangementshasfocussedonthe experienceof the parentsratherthanthe children (Baum,2003; Madden-Derdich& Leonard,2002; Mullis & Otwell, 1998).It is arguedthat a joint custody’arrangement“satisfiesparents,eventhoughthe arrangementmaynot takeinto considerationtherights andneedsof the children” (Mullis & Otwell, 1998, p. 106),and focusesmoreupon parents’rights than thoseof children(Lederman,1999).

Useof the term custodysuggeststhat parentshaverights andentitlementsoverchildren: that it is their right to seeandhave‘meaningful’ contactwith thechildren of their family, andthattheserights takeprecedenceover thoseof otherssuchasthechildrenthemselves.The UnitedNationsConventionon theRightsoftheChild positionschildrenasactiveshapersof theirown livesandableto makedecisions(howeversmall) independentlyofadults. In this view, parentsandotheradults(suchasteachers)haveresponsibilitiestoward children, to help them to growappropriately,to makepositivedecisionsabouttheir own lives,andto realisetheirfull potential. Following separation,parentshaveresponsibilitiesto ensurethat children’sroutinesarenotsignificantly disrupted,to developappropriatearrangementsfortheir adequatecare,to malntainpositiverelationshipswith thechildrenand to providethemwith securityandcontinuity in theirlives. Theseresponsibilitiesapply independentlyof with whom thechildren resideandthe waysin which theymanagecontactwitheachparent.

A presumptionthat childrenwill spendequaltime with eachparentignoresthe rights of children to structuretheir own timefor contact,appropriateto their ageandstageof development,andto decidefor them howthat contactwill bemanaged.Moreover,itignoresparents’responsibilitiesto providepositive experiencesforchildrenregardlessof time spentwith them. Tim Mulvaney,aMelbourneFamily Lawyer, recentlypointedout, “Parentshaveresponsibilitiesmorethan theyhaverights, andof coursethat’smy view of thewaythat the legislation’sexpressed,trying to haveverbs,which aredoingwords, andnot nouns,which makechildren possessions”(Carrick, 2003).

While the UnitedNationsConventionon theRightsofthe Childmentionsparental‘rights’ (at Article 5), it positionstheserights inrelation to “responsibilities”and “duties” of parentsor othercaregivers“to provide, in a mannerconsistentwith theevolvingcapacitiesof thechild, appropriatedirectionandguidancein theexerciseby the child of therights recognizedin the...Convention.”Theseresponsibilitiescanbe adequatelycarriedout underthecurrentprovisionsof theFamilyLaw ReformAct 1995, whichprovidesfor the sharingof parentalresponsibilitiesof thesefunctions.

FSA Submission to Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangement -. August 2003J,oN.xCOMOUO~

Parental responsibilitiescan be adequatelycarried out under thecurrent provisions ofthe Family Law ReformAct 1995, whichprovides for the sharingof parentalresponsibilities of thefunctions recognised inthe United NationsConvention on theRights of the Child.

4.3. Children’s Views on SharedResidence

As a resultof actionbasedresearch,practiti6nermembersofFamily ServicesAustraliareportthat children’sexperiencesofsharedresidencearevaried. It shouldbenotedalsothat to datethereis limited Australianresearchlookingat predictorsofsuccessfulsharedresidencearrangementsin separatedfamilies.Howeverresearchwithin FSA membershipservicessupportsthefact that while thosechildrenwho havenot experiencedsharedresidencemayaskthat theyseeeachparentfor an equalamountof time, thosewho havemovedbetweenhomeson a regularbasismayreportfrustrationanddissatisfactionwith the arrangements.For some,this dissatisfactionmaynot bevoicedto parentsbecauseof loyalty issues,while for othersthe fearof negativeconsequencesfor askingfor achangein the arrangementswillprohibit them from voicing dissatisfaction.

In a currentresearchprojectchildrenarebeinginterviewedabouttheir experienceswith decisionsfollowing their parents’separations(Campbell,in preparation).Thechildreninvolved withthis researchhavecommentedon a numberof issuesrelatingtoresidenceandcontactwith their parents.Theircommentsreflectthoseof children with whom FSA memberorganisationshaveworkedacrossthe country.

The researchindicatesthat childrenwill generallyhavepositivefeelingstowardsbothparentsregardlessof the amountof contacttheyhavewith them(Wallerstein& Kelly, 1980).They oftenwishthat theparentsdid not separateand that theywill returntocohabitation.Childrenmaintaina fantasyabouttheir parentsformanyyearsfollowing separation,viewingboth in a positivelightand remainingloyal to themthroughouttheir lives. Thesefeelingscanoften be communicatedin children’scommentsabouttheirparentsand thearrangementsfor theirresidenceandcontactwitheachparent.Childrenwho live with oneparentandvisit theotheron aweekly or fortnightly basismayexpressawish to spendmoretime with the ‘contact’ parent.For somechildren, this is relatedtothe perceptionof the ‘contact’ parentasdifferent from theparentwith whom thechild resides:

Amy, aged9, is asked,“You seeyourdad everysecondweekend?”Shereplies:Amy: I’d like to seemy dadmoreoften.Q: Why wouldyou want to seehim moreoften?Amy: BecauseI like seeingmy dad coshe’sheap— heapsoffun (Campbell,in preparation).

Forothers,feelingsof loyalty to both parentswill motivatechildren to considerways to createmore ‘fairness‘ inarrangements:

Felicity, aged9: It might be a bit toohardfor children saying,well, I don’t knowwho to go for costhey’reboth nice.Q: So thenwhatshouldhappen?Felicity: Well, if hehada brotheror sistermaybeone cango


Evidence suggests thatwhere parents liveclosely togetherfollowing theirseparation andcommunicate welltogether, children mayenjoy an arrangementwhere they spend equaltime with each parent.

When parents livesome distance awayfrom each other, orwhen there is a degreeof conflict between theparents, children oftenfind spending equaltime with each parenthighly stressful andunsatisfactory.

with that one oronecouldgo with that one so they’rebothnot lonely (Campbell,in preparation).

For Felicity, attendingto herparents’needs,andnot herown, is ahigh priority. Sheequatesfairnesswith ensuringthat herparentsare“not lonely”. In doing so, sheis taking on aparentingrole thatis consideredinappropriatefor children.

Fairnessis an issuefor somechildrenwho do spendequaltimewith eachparent;however,it is oftennot clearwhethertheyareconsideringtheissueof fairnessfrom their own viewpoint or fromthat of their parents:

Daniel, aged10, reportedthatwhenhisparentsseparatedtheyvisited a building in thecity wheretheytalkedwith“someone.” Danielstatedthat his parentsconsideredseveraloptionsin relationto “what to do” with him andfinallyagreedto Danielliving with eachof themon a weeklyrotationalbasis.Danielstated:“So, thepersonwho we wentto, theydecidedto do the switchingoverweeksone...cosit’sfairer” (Campbell,in preparation).

Evidencesuggeststhat whereparentslive closelytogetherfollowing their separationandcommunicatewell together,childrenmayenjoy an arrangementwheretheyspendequaltimewith eachparent.However,suchan arrangementmaybe moreeffectivewherethechildrenfeel no restrictionson theirmovementbetweeneachparentandwhereparentsaresupportiveof their seeingeachat their own leisure.

Ellen, aged9, liveswith hermotherduringmostweekswhileherfather,who lives a shortdistanceaway, works longhours.Ellen’s parentsagreedthat Ellenwould spendalternateweekendswith herfatherand visit him eachWednesdayeveningfor a meal. In practice,Ellen spendsfarmoretime with herfather,oftenseeinghim at timesduringtheweek andon mostweekends.Shesays:Ellen: Oh, like I live with my mum, but on WednesdaysI goto my dad’sfor the,like for tea,andthenon everysecondweekendI go to Dad’s or sometimesgo roundthere,um, like,Q: Duringthe week?Ellen: Yeah, or on the weekendswhenI’m with Mum. Yeah,cosI’m allowedto go all weekand stuff. [Mum]tells meif I’mbored to go roundthere(Campbell,in preparation).

Whenparentslive somedistanceaway from eachother, or whenthereis a degreeof conflict betweentheparents,children oftenfind spendingequaltime with eachparenthighlystressfulandunsatisfactory.In Family Courtmattersrequiringthepreparationof a Family Reportfor the Court, childrenwho havebeenresidingin eachparent’shomeon aweeklybasishavereportedfeelingtired from thenecessityto travel sometimeslong distancesbetweenthetwo residences;havingto ferry notesbetweentheparents,which puts themin the middleof aconflict that theysometimesthink is aboutthem; havingto carryall theirbelongingsbetweenhomes;andhavingto ‘fit in’ with the childrenof parents’newpartnerswhile feelingasif theyno longerbelong.

Ax‘o~om

hi

FSA Submission to Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangement -. August 2003NV

Daniel, aged10 describesliving with eachparenton aweeklybasisas“difficult”:Daniel: CoswhensometimesI’m with my dad,um, they’vegot, coswe live sofar awayit takesalong time to get home,sowhenwe get homemy dad’slike workingor somethingsoI don’t, I don’t really get to seehim that often.For Daniel,his father’sworkalsointerfereswith his ability tospendasmuchtime ashe would like with him:Daniel: During theseholidays,I’m not going to get to seemydadverymuchbecauseheand [hiscurrentpartner]aregoing overseasfor two weeksandmy dad’s beenworkingforthe last couple of days,so I’ve only spentonefull daywithmy dad,andhalf aday.Daniel statedthat rememberingto takeall of his belongingsto eachparent’shomeis alsodifficult:Daniel: Um, like my Nintendothings,my mice; I don’t wantto takemy miceagain,costheywent into Dad’s car.And,um, it’s hard, cosI haveto makesuremy bagsare packed,got everythingin onehugebox or something,I don’t know,andmight be like, with my Nintendo,I.. .forgot to takethepow, bring the powersupplydownhere,so I couldn’t playNintendo.Thenum, I, I went up therewithout my Nintendo,forgot to bring the powersupplybackagain(Campbell,inpreparation).Daniel alsoreporteddifficulties with thechildrenof hisfather’snewpartner.The newpartner’sson is two yearsyoungerthanDaniel, andtheysharea room at Daniel’sfather’s home.Danielreported:Daniel: Sohe is always,like, making thingsdifficult,like... hehasthisbunk bed. We took it apart,so I slepton the bottomone...I’ve got this hugechiffonier with all thesebooksandstuff andthenmy clothesandstuff are down thebottom,andwheneverI call it my bedhe says,‘What do you mean,your bed?I’m lettingyou usemy bed.’ He’s alwaysleavinghis stuff on my bed,sowheneverI say, ‘Stop leavingyourstuff on my bed:’ What do you meanyour bed?’He doesn’tbother.He neverhelpsme cleanup.

While conflicts suchas thesecan mirror thoseof close siblings,the differenceis that Daniel andchildren like him find themselvesfeeling like virtual strangersin onehome, if not both. Childrenofnew partnerscan ‘squeezeout’ children who ‘visit’ everysecondweek,denyingthem aspaceof their own. Even whenparentsti-vto include all children in the family, sometimesa timid oruncertainchild will find the experiencehighly stressful.Again,theymaynot wish to voice their dissatisfactionfor fear ofupsettingtheir parentsor becomingthe targetof angerfrom oneor both parents.

Seven-year-oldBrendasometimesexpressesa wishnot toexercisecontactwith her father.On thoseoccasions,shereports,“I tell [Mum] that I don’t want to go andshejustsays,‘Fine, but you’ll haveto do all thestuff that I wanttodo.’Q: And how doesyour dad...feel aboutyou not going?Brenda:Hejust um. . . he sometimesgetsa tiny bit madwith

FSA Submission to Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangement -. August 2003J’~U~)Ue’~N~V

Recommendation 3FSA recommendsthat the Inquiryconsult children —

both those who haveexperienced a jointresidencearrangement andthose who have not- in the preparationof its report on apresumption thatchildren spend equaltime with eachparent (section 4.3).

Recommendation 4Additionally, FSArecommends that theInquiry explore otheravenues of involvingchildren in decision-making processesfollowing theirparents’ separation(section 4.3).

me, sohe just says,That’s OK, it’s fine with me.’Q: How do you knowhe’s feeling mad?Brenda:Well, sometimesI go to his houseandI dosomethingwrong andhejust getsa tiny bit angrywith me(Campbell,in preparation).

Thereis evidenceto suggestthat, given positive contactexperienceswith eachparent,children will want to maintain thatcontact.Fran, aged17, stated:

if they’re sayingno [to contactwith aparent]therecouldbe avery strongreasonwhy they’re sayingno (Campbell,inpreparation).

Fran pointed out that children will not ceasecontactwith aparentunlessthereare strongreasonsfor them doing so. However, Franalso indicatedan awarenessthat parents’needswere involved inchildren’s decisionsto spendtime with eachparent:

Fran: Well, yeah,it’s like you know, sometimeswe don’t, liketheparentshavebig problemsandstuff if we don’t seethema lot, but still evenif we haveproblemswith our dadsandmums,if we still a, obligatedto really go seehim everyoncein awhile, so, if it workssometimeswe can’tgo on theweekends,we just don’t do it or not sort of thing, but we stillhaveto seehim (Campbell,in preparation).

Fran arguedthat children should beconsultedaboutcontactarrangements(Campbell,in preparation).This argumentissupportedby the current literatureboth in Australia and theUnited Kingdom (Chisholm, 2000; Coady, 1996; Redman,1997;Taylor, 1998). However,consultingchildren doesnot necessarilymeansimply obtainingtheir wishes,as provided in Section68F ofthe Family Law ReformAct 1995. Children haveexpressedtheopinion that simply seekingtheir wishesis not as positive forthem asaskingthem abouttheir interestsandneeds(Campbell,in preparation;Jones& Marks, 1996; Tapp & Taylor, 2001;Thomas& OKane, 1998).

Recommendation3FSArecommendsthat theInquiry consultchildren— both thosewhohaveexperiencedajoint residencearrangementand thosewhohavenot — in thepreparationofits report on a presumptionthatchildren spendequaltimewith eachparent.

Recommendation4Additionally,FSArecommendsthat theInquiry exploreotheravenuesofinvolvingchildrenin decision-makingprocessesfollowing theirparents’separation.

4.4. The Effectivenessof Joint Parenting Arrangements

Researchsuggeststhat joint parentingarrangementsaremosteffectivewhen thereis little conflict andahistoryof cooperationbetweenthe parents,whereparentshavesharedparentingtasksprior to their separation,whereparentsvoluntarily agreeto share


Research suggests thatjoint parentingarrangements are mosteffective when there islittle conflict and ahistory of cooperationbetween the parents.

When only a smallnumber of families inAustralia choose anarrangement wherechildren shareresidence, and whenthe research suggeststhat parents wholitigate cannot managea shared residencearrangement due to thesignificant levels ofconflict within thefamily, it isinappropriate tomandate thearrangement for all.

A rebuttablepresumption thatchildren will spendequal time with eachparent imposes anunworkablearrangement on peoplewho are least able tomanage it, and ignoresthe fact that thearrangement is nothighly preferred even infamilies who canmanage it.

Recommendation 5FSA recommendsthat the Inquirynotes theeffectiveness of thecurrent provisionswithin the FamilyLaw Reform Act 1995and the applicationfor families wherejoint parentingarrangements willwork, noting that theAct provides now forjoint parenting whichcan include sharedliving arrangements(section 4.4).

the parentingtasks,andwherearrangementsareflexible enoughto accommodatethe child’s friendship groups,activities andeducationalneeds(Mullis & Otwell, 1998; Nicholson, 2003).Whensharedresidencearrangementsareeffective,they areusuallyagreedto by both parentsawayfrom courtsandlitigation, andboth arecommitted to the arrangementworking for the benefitofthe children. However,joint residencearrangementsarenot usualwithin the population of separatedfamilies with someFSAmembersindicating that, in their experience,approximately11%of all separatedfamilies choosesuchan arrangement.

Wheretherearehigh levels of animosityand conflict betweenparents,joint parentingarrangementshavethe potential todestroythe relationshipsbetweentheparentsthemselvesandbetweeneachparentand the children (Baum, 2003). Parentswhoenter litigation areoften so highly conflictual that joint parentingUoint residenceor joint ‘custody’) is contra-indicated.A rebuttablepresumptionthat children will spendequaltime with eachparentignoresthepossibility of ongoingconflict betweenparentsthat willultimatelydestroychildren’srelationshipswith oneor bothparents,and removesthe responsibilityof otherparentsto worktogetherin meetingchildren’s bestinterests.CurrentFamily Lawprovisionsinclude possibilitiesfor sharedparentingarrangements,including sharedresidencewhereit is consideredto be in the child’s bestinterests.

However,when only asmallnumberof families in Australiachoosean arrangementwherechildren shareresidence,andwhenthe researchsuggeststhatparentswho litigate cannotmanageasharedresidencearrangementdue to the significant levels ofconflict within the family, it is inappropriateto mandatethearrangementfor all. Currentstatisticsprovidedby the ChildSupportAgency (CSA) indicatethat “the numberof familiessharingcaremore than30% of the time is asmall componentofthe total CSA caseload”(Child SupportAgency2003). Arebuttablepresumptionthat children will spendequaltime witheachparentimposesan unworkablearrangementon peoplewhoareleastable to manageit, andignoresthe fact that thearrangementis not highly preferredevenin families who canmanageit.

Recommendation5FSArecommendsthat theInquiry notestheeffectivenessof thecurrentprovisionswithin theFamily LawReformAct 1995 and theapplicationforfamilieswherejoint parentingarrangementswillwork, notingthat theActprovidesnowfor joint parentingwhich canincludesharedliving arrangements.

4.5. The Significance of Attachment

The experienceof FSA’s memberorganisationsindicates thatchildren canhavestrongpositive relationshipswith both parentsevenwhen theydo not live with both of them. Relationshipsgrowthrough manydifferent avenues.As children grow, theydevelop

FSA Submission to Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangement -. August 2003zoE.x____gouou

Recommendation 6FSA recommendsthat the Inquirycarefully considerthe research onchildren’sattachment tosignificant others(section 4.5).

friendshipsandstrongrelationshipswith others,including otherchildren andadultssuchasgrandparents,aunts,unclesandfamily friends.Additionally, childrencanexperiencestrongandloving bondswith a parentwith whom theydo not live whentheparentapproachesthe child with love, compassionandunderstanding.

Children areoften attachedto oneparentmore thanto theother,andmayexperiencehigh stresslevelswhenremovedfrom themore significantparentfor aperiod of time. In recentexperience,an 8-year-oldchild who hasbeensharingresidencebetweenhismother andfather reportedthat he wastired of the arrangementandwishedto residewith his mother,with whom he felt a strongbond. When askedhow hewould feel if this did not occur, hereplied that hewasnot concernedaboutthat possibility, becausehe knewthat the Courtwould realisethathe should be with hismother (Campbell,in preparation).In anothercase,a 15-year-oldboy movedto residewith his father on afull-time basis, thusendingajoint residencearrangement,following aconflict with hismother.He hasreportedthat he feelsastrongerbond with hisfather thanwith his mother (Campbell,in preparation).

Recommendation6FSArecommendsthat theInquiry carefullyconsiderthis issueandtheresearchonchildren’s attachmentto significant others.

4.6. Presumption of Equal Time and Issuesof DomesticViolence

Researchindicatesthat children who areexposedto violencewithin the homeare significantly traumatisedby the experience.Even when parentsbelievethat children havenot witnessedtheviolence betweentheparents,children themselveshaveexpressedan awarenessthat their parents‘fight’ andhaveoften seentheeffectsof conflict on eachof their parents(Bagshaw,Campbell,&Jelinek,2002). Moreover,a growing body of researchsuggeststhatchildren in families wheredomesticviolenceoccursare oftenthemselvesvictims of violenceandabusefrom oneor bothparents.

It is sometimesvery difficult for adult victims of domesticviolenceto leavethe relationship.Somevictims experiencesignificant fearof the consequences,both for themselvesandfor the children, ofleaving,while othersdo not havethe support systemsavailabletoassistthem oncetheyhaveleft. Many victims of domesticviolencesimply do not haveinformation aboutwhat to do, whereto go,how to keepthemselvesandthe children safeandwhat supportswill be availablefor them when (or if) they leavethe violentrelationship.The difficulties experiencedby victims who havelittlesupportand no information can beexacerbatedby an assumptionthat children will spendequaltime with eachparentafterseparation,with the victim decidingto remain in the violentsituation becauses/he seesno way out. Indeed,victims ofdomesticviolence sometimesreturn to residewith the perpetrator


Often, safety meansrestricting contactbetween the childrenand the perpetrator ofthe violence. Apresumption that thechildren will spendequal time with eachparent under thesecircumstances placesthe victims in an unsafeposition.

Recommendation 7PSA recommendsthat the Inquirycarefully considerissues of domesticviolence indetermining theadvisability ofchildren spendingequal time with bothparents followingseparation (section4.6).

becauseof the lack of supportsin the community after they leave(Kaye, Stubbs,& Tolmie, 2003).

Having left, avictim relies on safety systemsfor her/himself andthe children. Often, safety meansrestrictingcontactbetweenthechildren andthe perpetratorof the violence. A presumptionthatthe children will spendequaltime with eachparentunder thesecircumstancesplacesboth the victim andthe children in anunsafeposition for severalreasons.

First, a victim of violencewill be obliged to inform Courts,counsellorsandmediatorsabouther/his fears.Disclosureis oftenextremelydifficult, becausevictims fearStateinterventionsuchasremovalof children or further violencefrom the perpetratorif theydisclose(Kaye, Stubbs,& Tolmie, 2003). Sometimes,the very actof divulging this information can placeavictim in dangeroffurther abusefrom the perpetrator,with victims unable to trustthat theywill beprotectedfollowing an admissionof violence.Additionally, the legal systemin Australia placesthe burdenuponthe victim to ‘prove’ that s/hehasbeenabusedandthat thechildren could be in dangerif they seethe perpetratorin‘uncontrolled’ circumstances.This burdenof proof canresult inthe perpetratorputting pressureon the victim to withdrawallegationsandagreeto theperpetrator’sdemands.

Second,apresumptionthat children will spendequaltime witheachparenthasthepotential to keepthe perpetratorandvictim ofviolencein closeproximity to eachother without safeguardsforthe victim. The perpetratorcould makeunreasonabledemandsonthe victim in relation to the time that the children spendwith theperpetrator,and the victim could feel trappedin asituation thattheyare powerlessto change.Children themselvescouldexperienceabusefrom the perpetratorwhen frustrations relatedtocontactarrangementssurfaceor whenchildren askfor variationsin the regimeof contact.

Third, perpetratorswill havethe ability to control the victim andthe children in respectof their activities, friendshipgroups,financial matters,the children’seducation,andotherissuessuchas medicalcare.The victim could potentially remainunder theperpetrator’sinfluenceanddirect control for asignificant part ofher/his future eventhough s/hehas separatedfrom her/him.

Recommendation7FSArecommendsthat theInquiry carefullyconsiderissuesofdomesticviolencein determiningtheadvisabilityof childrenspendingequaltimewith bothparentsfollowingseparation.

4.7. The Practicalities of an Assumption of Equal Time

Whenparentsseparate,thereareoften majorchangesto bothparents’lifestyles, residenceandactivities. Thesechangesaffectchildren aswell.

Ax(OMOM


Flexibility is asignificant indicator ofthe success of a jointresidence arrangement.When one parent is soinflexible that childrencannot attend weeklyactivities because theydon’t fit with thatparenUs schedule, thechild begins to suffer.

Joint parentinghasbeenfound to be effectivewhen parentsresideclosely to oneanotherandareflexible in managingthearrangements.The experienceof FSA membershasbeenthat thewider the distancebetweentheir parents’homesthe more difficultit is for children to feel satisfiedwith spendingequaltime witheachparent.Travel time betweeneachhome, the schoolandvenuesfor sport andotheractivities, becomestiring andstressfulfor children. Additionally, whenparentsareinflexible in ‘enforcing’their timewith the children (rather thanaccommodatingthechildren’s activities into the availabletime), children becomedisillusionedwith thearrangementsandexpressdissatisfactionand evenangeroverasituationthat they find themselvespowerlessto change.

In asignificant numberof families, oneparentis obliged to moveaway from theareain which the family lived pre-separation.Financialconsiderations,family andindividual support systems,employmentopportunitiesandother factorsoften necessitatemajor changesfor oneor both parents.It is often not possibleforparentsto continueto residecloselyenoughto eachotherfor ajoint residencearrangementto work effectively. In rural Australia(suchasin KarrathaandWeipa), and in DefenceForce families,there is often no housingavailablefor aformerpartner followingseparation,andoneparentis obliged to move out of the townand/or awayfrom the area. In other rural towns, rental propertiesare simply unavailable.Elsewhere,rental in theareaof the formermaritalhomeis prohibitively expensive,anda separatedparentisobligedto movesomedistanceto find affordableaccommodation.In somecentres(suchasBroome)a separatedparentcanfindhim/herself soisolatedfollowing separationthat s/he mustleavethe town to move closerto support systemsand family of origin.Additionally, manyAustralians movebetweencities and townsacrossthe country, and their families of origin maybehundredsor eventhousandsof kilometres away.The vastdistanceswithinthe countryoften makeit impossiblefor children to spendequaltime with eachparent.

Flexibility is a significant indicator of the successof ajointresidencearrangement.When oneparentis so inflexible thatchildren cannotattendweeklyactivities becausetheydon’t fit withthat parent’sschedule,the child begins to suffer. Flexibility alsoapplies to changeoverarrangementsand the ability of children tospendtimewith friends andextendedfamily.

Routineis very important to children andparentswithdisabilities, andsharedcarearrangementsmaynot offer suchroutine. Childrenwith disabilitiesoften requirespecific supportserviceswhich maynot havethe flexibility to ‘follow’ the childfrom parentto parent. Also, serviceprovidersneedto liaiseregularly with theprimary carerof achild with adisability. If thesituation involves equalcare, thentherewill be issuesofcommunicationthat mayadverselyaffect the quality of servicesthe child receivesfrom externalsupport services.


Recommendation 8FSA recommendsthat the Inquiryconsider the issuesrelating to parentalflexibility, level ofcommunicationbetween the parents,and parents’residencearrangements whendetermining theadvisability of apresumption of equaltime (section 4.7).

A further strongindicator of joint residencesuccessis the abilityof parentsto communicateeffectively togetheron issuesrelating tothe children’swelfare. In a family wherethe children werespendingequaltime with eachparent, oneparentexpressedconcernaboutthe weightof oneof the children. This parenttookthe child to adieticianwithout prior consultationwith the otherparent. Conflict thendevelopedbetweentheparentsthat led tothe breakdownof thejoint parentingarrangement.This typeofsituation is further exacerbatedwhenthe parentsare thoseof achild with adisability. Also, whenoneor bothparentshaveadisability, the conceptof equaltime becomesmore complicated.One parentmaybebetterequippedto offer the support that theirchild needs,andconcernsaboutautomaticsharedcaremayleadto somefamilies remainingtogetherfor ‘convenience’.

Parentswhosechildren experiencepositivejoint parentingarrangementshavedevelopedstrongcommunicationpatternsbetweeneachother andareusually in agreementabouthow toaddressissuesthat arisebetweenthem aboutthe children.

Recommendation8FSArecommendsthat theInquiry considertheissuesrelating toparentalflexibility, levelofcommunicationbetweentheparents,andparents’residencearrangementswhendeterminingtheadvisabilityofa presumptionofequaltime.

4.8. Cultural Issues

A rebuttableassumptionthat childrenwill spendequaltime witheachparentignoresthe diversity of the peopleof this nation.Cultural traditions, including thoseof the dominantWesternculture, require amore sensitiveapproachto the issueofparentingafter separation.

MainstreamAustralian culture (basedon Westerntraditionsinherited from GreatBritain) hasassignedspecific rolesforindividuals within family structures.In this cultural tradition,men areperceivedas ‘bread winners’ while womentraditionallyassumethe role of caregiver,mother andhomemaker (Schaffer,1988).This hasresultedin menbeingabsentfrom the homeforlong periodsandwomenassumingthe majority of parentingtasks.The result is astrongattachmentbetweenchildren and theirmothersanda lesssignificantattachmentbetweenchildren andfathers. Evenwhenwomenhaveworked, theyhaveoftenstructuredtheir day differently from menbecauseof theexpectationfor themto considerthe needsof the childrenin theircare.Childrenmaythereforeoftenidentify morewith the motherandreceivea greatersenseof securityfrom her thanfrom thefather. The perceptionthat children arelackingpositivemalerolemodels,asrecentlydescribedby the PrimeMinister in the Houseof Representatives(24June2003),maynot be relatedso much tothe absenceof fathersfollowing separation,but to their generalabsenceduring thegrowth of children due to cultural demandsthat theywork while motherstakeresponsibilityfor thecareof

A.J’ON OX

FSA Submission to Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangement -. August 2003JO lOXCONOEO~X~@NO~

The experiences ofthose working in theseprograms, as well asevaluations of theseprograms such as theEvaluation of the Menand FamilyRelationships Initiative2002 (Phoenix Report),indicate that men arenow seeking to attendparenting programs tolearn more effectiveparenting approaches.Women, too, have beenrequesting easieraccess to parentingprograms and supportservices than havebeen generallyavailable. Thisencouraging trenddemonstrates theneeds of both fathersand mothers to buildstronger relationshipswith children throughdeveloping their ownparenting skills.

Recommendation 9FSA recommendsthat the Inquiryconsult widely withdifferent culturalgroups withinAustralia todetermine theapplicability of anassumption of jointresidence to theirown value and beliefsystems (section4.8).

children. Theseissuesmustbeconsideredin anydiscussionofresidenceof childrenfollowing parentalseparation.

FSA acknowledgesthatthis situationis changingfor Australianfamilies. Over thepasttwo decadesmanymenhaveassumedstrongparentingroles,with someactingasfull-time parents.FSA’s memberorganisationsinclude manythat offer programsunderthe MenandFamily RelationshipsServicesProgram.Theexperiencesof thoseworking in theseprograms,aswell asevaluationsof theseprogramssuchasthe EvaluationoftheMenand FamilyRelationshipsInitiative 2002 (PhoenixReport),indicatethat menarenow seekingto attendparentingprogramsto learnmoreeffectiveparentingapproaches.Women,too, havebeenrequestingeasieraccessto parentingprogramsandsupportservicesthanhavebeengenerallyavailable.This encouragingtrenddemonstratestheneedsof both fathersandmothersto buildstrongerrelationshipswith childrenthroughdevelopingtheir ownparentingskills. However, theincreasingdemandfor appropriateparentingprogramsandskills training is placinga burdenonexisting servicesin meetingthe demand.PSA agreeswith thefindings of recentInquiriesandreports,including the To haveandto hold — Strategiesto strengthenmarriageandrelationshi~ps1998(theAndrewsReport),theDeliveryofPrimary DisputeResolutionServicesin FamilyLaw 1997, and Out of theMaze— PathwaystotheFuturefor FamiliesExperiencingSeparation2001, thatmoreparentingtraining andsupportservicesmustbedeveloped.However,FSA noteswith dismaythat little hasbeendonetoaddresstheseissues.

In othercultures,therearespecific expectationsof therole offathersandmothersthat maydiffer from the dominantWesternculture. Indigenousfamilies, for example,havea view of childrenthatplacesthemin apositionof socialsignificancedifferent fromthe childrenofWesternparents.Intricatekinship systemsplacechildrenin relationto a numberof significantadults,apartfromtheir birth parents.An assumptionthat childrenwill spendequaltime with only their parentsignoresthe deepemotionaltieswithothersin the kinship system,and is inappropriatefor Indigenouschildren.

SomeMiddle Easternculturesarepatriarchal,wherechildren willresidewith fathersfollowing parentalseparation.Familieswhosereligion orcultural valuesaredifferent from the dominantWesternculturewill considera presumptionof equaltime with eachparentasa denial oftheir strongculturalvaluesandeveninsulting totheir traditional customs.

Recommendation9FSArecommendsthat theInquiry consultwidely with differentcultural groupswithin Australia to determinetheapplicability ofanassumptionofjoint residenceto their own valueand beliefsystems.


Recommendation10: FSArecommends thatthe Inquiryrecognises the needfor expanding thedelivery of serviceswhich have provento be effective inassisting parentspost divorce orseparation toestablish effective,nurturing, sharedparenting.

5. Conclusion

In line with theAustralianFamilyLaw ReformAct 1995, FSAsupportstheconceptthatthe child’s ‘best interests’beparamountin family law proceedings.A moveto rebuttablejointcustodyretrogressivelyshifts thephilosophicalgroundto theparents’rights in dividing up thechildren, ratherthanthechildren’srights. This philosophicalshift revertsto the pre-1995notionof ownershipof, ratherthat responsibilityfor, children.This is not a direction that would besupportedby FSA.

FSA agreeswith the Inquiry that, in manycases,children andnon-residentparentsdesiremorequality contacttime andbetterrelationships,howevera mandatedchangein residencyarrangementswould not necessarilymeettheseneeds. Increasedresourcesto supportfamilies developthe skills to managetheirrelationshipsandcontactpre andpostseparationis proving to bevery effectiveandoffersa more tangiblesolution to this issue.

Above all, ensuringthat children areconsultedandinvolved inresidencedecisionsmustremainthe primaryfocusof the familylaw system. Supportingchildren andtheir families to maintaincontact,andprovidingparentswith the skills to facilitatepostseparationrelationshipswith the child, remainthe critical issues.

Changingthelaw to a rebuttablepresumptionof sharedcustodywill not addressthe issueatthe coreof this Inquiry — maintainingeffectiveandnurturingcontactwith children post separation.Whathasbeenshownto beworking areprogramssuchastheContactOrdersProgramwhere theProgram helpsvery conflictedadults movetowardsa moreco-operativestanceaboutchildcontactwith theirformerpartners. Benefitsincludelearning aboutthepositivesofparentingand communicationskills. Evenin asituationwherethechild contactoutcomeis not whataparentwants, theProgramhelpsthatparentmoveon to anotherstageinbfewherefurther litigation is unlikely. Clients describetheProgramas ‘a lWeline’and as having ‘savedour lives’. Many are infavouroftheProgrambeingmademandatoryfor separatingparents. (Evaluationof theContactOrdersProgram,ExecutiveSummary,May 2003)

FSA memberorganisationssubmittingindividually to this Inquiryprovide additionalmaterial in supportof the ESA submission.

Recommendation10FSArecommendsthat theInquiry recognisesthe needforexpandingthe deliveryofserviceswhichhaveprovento beeffectivein assistingparentspostdivorceor separationto establisheffective,nurturing, sharedparenting.

(over)

FSA Submission to Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangement -. August 2003tOU 01

NYi~p

Recommendation 11FSA recommendsthat the Inquirycarefully considerthe development offurther effectiveparenting skillsprograms andsupport services, andseek funding forthese programs to bedeveloped as amatter of urgency.Programs should beavailable for parentsfrom the time ofpregnancy throughthe family and childlife cycle, andespecially both pre-and post-separation(section 4.8).

Recommendation11FSArecommendsthat theInquiry carefullyconsiderthedevelopmentoffurthereffectiveparentingskillsprogramsandsupportservices,and seekfundingfor theseprogramsto bedevelopedas a matterofurgency.Programsshouldbeavailableforparentsfrom thetimeofpregnancythroughthefamily and child lifecycle, and especiallybothpre-andpost-separation.

___ FSA Submission to Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangement -. August 2003

6. References

Attorney-GeneralofAustralia (2001).Family Law: Past,Presentand Future. (pp. 14).KeynoteAddress:Family Courtsof Australia25th AnniversaryConference,Sydney.

Bagshaw,D., Campbell,A., & Jelinek,L. (2002).ChildrenandDomesticViolence: AnEvaluationofJannawiResources.Conflict ManagementResearchGroup, UniversityofSouthAustralia.

Baum,N. (2003). DivorceProcessVariablesandthe Co-ParentalRelationshipandParentalRoleFulfillment of DivorcedParents.Family Process,42(1), 117 - 131.

Campbell,A. (2002).Working with Children in FamilyMediation. PsychotherapyinAustralia, 8(4),46 - 51.

Campbell,A. (in preparation).The Voice of theChild in Family Law: WhoseRight? Who’sRight?, Universityof SouthAustralia.

Carrick, D. (2003). Kids, Contactand theCourts . The Law Report,ABC Radio,27 May2003.

Child SupportAgency (2003). Informationfor Membersof the ChiefJustice’sConsultativeCommittee.Child SupportAgencyAugust2003.

Chisholm,R. (1996). Assessingthe impactof the Family Law ReformAct 1995.AustralianJournalof Family Law, 10,177 - 197.

Chishoim,R. (2000). Children’s Participationin Family CourtLitigation. Paperpresentedat theNinth NationalFamily Law Conference,Sydney.

Coady,M. M. (1996). Reflectionson children’srights. In K. Funder(Ed.), Citizen child:Australianlaw andchildren’srights . Melbourne:AustralianInstituteof Family Studies.

Dunn, J., & Deater-Deckard,K. (2001).Children’sViews oftheir ChangingFamilies.JosephRowntreeFoundation.

Eekelaar,J. (1994).Theinterestsof the child and the child’s wishes:Therole of dynamicself-determinism.In P. Alston (Ed.), The BestInterestsof the Child: ReconcilingCultureandHumanRights. Oxford: ClarendonPress.

Giles, C. (2002).My Story. : http://www.legalkids.com.

Jones,M., & Marks, L. A. B. (1996).MediatingRights: Children, Parentsand theState.

AustralianJournalof HumanRights,2(2), 313 - 327.

Kaye, M., Stubbs,J., & Tolmie,J. (2003). ResearchReport 1: NegotiatingChild ResidenceandContactArrangementsAgainsta Backgroundof DomesticViolence . UniversityofSydney.

Kelly, J. B. (1997). Thebestinterestsof the child: A conceptin searchof meaning.FamilyandConciliationCourts Review,35(4), 377 - 387.

Landerkin, H. F. (1997).CustodyDisputesin theProvincial Courtof Alberta: A NewJudicialDisputeResolutionModel. Masters,Universityof Nevada.


Lederman,D. (1999).Defendingthe Rightsof Children of Divorce. Chronicleof HigherEducation,45(29),A14.

Lloyd-Smith, M., & Tarr, J. (2000).Researchingchildren’sperspectives:A sociologicaldimension.In A. Lewis & G. Lindsay(Eds.),Researchingchildren’sperspectives.Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress.

Madden-Derdich,D. A., & Leonard,S. A. (2002).SharedExperiences,Unique Realities:FormerlyMarriedMothers’ andFathers’Perceptionsof ParentingandCustodyAfterDivorce. Family Relations,5 1(1), 37 - 45.

McIntosh,J. (2000). Child inclusive divorcemediation:Reporton a qualitativeresearchstudy. Mediation Quarterly, 18(1), 55 - 69.

McWinney, R. L. (1997).Parentesmundi: In thebestinterestsof our children. FamilyandConciliation CourtsReview, 35(4), 388 - 392.

Mullis, F., & Otwell, P. 5. (1998).Who GetstheKids? Consultingwith ParentsaboutChild CustodyDecisions.ProfessionalSchoolCounselling,2(2), 103 - 109.

Nicholson,A. (2003). Children andChildren’sRightsin the Contextof Family Law. Paperpresentedat theLAWASIA Conference:Childrenandthe Law: Issuesin theAsiaPacificregion,Brisbane.

Redman,J. (1997).TheVoice of the Childrenin Family Disputes.AustralianFamilyLawyer, 12(1), 29 - 36.

Rotman,A. S.,Tompkins,R., Schwartz,L. L., & Samuels,M. D. (2000).Reconcilingparents’andchildren’sinterestsin relocation:In whosebestinterests?Family andConciliationCourtsReview,38(3), 341 - 367.

Schaffer,K. (1988).WomenandtheBush: Forcesof Desirein theAustralianCulturalTradition. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Tapp,P., & Taylor, N. (2001).WhereshouldtheFocusbe in theAftermathof ParentalSeparation:ChildrensRights or ParentalResponsibilities?ChildrenzIssues,5(1), 10 -

15.

Taylor, N. J. (1998).The Voice of Childrenin Family Law. Children’sLegal RightsJournal,18(1), 2 - 14.

Thomas,N., & OKane,C. (1998).WhenChildren’sWishesandFeelingsClashwith their‘Best Interests’.InternationalJournalof Children’s Rights, 6, 137 - 154.

Thomas,N., & OKane,C. (1999).Experiencesof Decision-Makingin Middle Childhood:The Exampleof Children ‘LookedAfter’ by LocalAuthorities. Childhood,6(3), 369 - 387.

Wallerstein,J. S., & Kelly, J. (1980). Surviving thebreakup:How childrenandparentscopewith divorce.New York: BasicBooks.

family services australia - parliament of australia€¦ · nurturing shared parenting. 1...

Documents