Clear message for Custodial Parents, encourage the relationship between children and the Non Custodial Parent

There was nothing in the judgment to suggest the mother had denigrated the father, only that she hadn’t encouraged a good relationship between the children and their father. The girl told her court counsellor that she didn’t like that her father had left the family and now had a new girlfriend, whom she didn’t like either.

But Benjamin made the decision to move the children with amendments to the Family Law Act in mind. These amendments, colloquially known as the “shared parenting” provisions, were introduced by the Howard government in 2006. They say that children “have the right to know and be cared for by both parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never been married or have never lived together”.

Children also have a “right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents”.

Fathers fight back | The Australian

Family Court saying there is no bias to fathers

CASES coming before the Family Court will be decided on merit and not on a formula designed to benefit fathers, Chief Justice Diana Bryant said yesterday.

Chief Justice Bryant said data released for the first time last week shows that the number of shared parenting decisions have more than doubled, meaning that fathers are getting more access to their children.

However, Chief Justice Bryant said that was to be expected after changes to the Family Law Act introduced by the Howard government in 2006.

Under the changes, the court must apply the presumption that shared, equal parenting is in the best interests of children, and that a child has a right to a relationship with both parents.

Chief Justice Bryant said that did not mean children would be forced into contact with violent fathers, or that mothers would routinely lose contact with their children.

The Australian has this week reported on the case known as Irish and Michelle (2009) in which judge Robert Benjamin ordered two children, aged nine and seven, be removed from their mother’s home in Tasmania and sent to live with their father in Melbourne. The children had lived with their mother since the couple separated in 2005, and the older girl was starting to resist contact with her father.

The judge said she was at risk of psychological harm, if she was not permitted to have a relationship with her father.

Chief Justice Bryant yesterday directed The Australian to other recent cases, where fathers were denied significant contact with their children, saying the court was heading in no particular direction.

In one case, Handley and Dantes, decided on March 3, judge James Barry ordered that the mother, a French citizen, have sole parental responsibility for two girls, born in 1997 and 1999. The court heard that when the father had access to the girls, he had, among other things, dived fully clothed into a pond at Sea World, so he could swim with the dolphins.

The court heard he smoked marijuana in front of the girls. He had been banned by teachers from visiting their school.

Source: No bias to fathers, says Family Court | The Australian

Fathers praise changes to Family Law Act

THE Family Court has undergone a radical change in direction since the Howard government’s changes to the Family Law Act came into effect, and the emphasis is now firmly on the rights of fathers to have relationships with their children after separation and divorce.

Wayne Butler of the Shared Parenting Council, which was established in 2002 to push for legislative change that would largely benefit fathers, said the law was quite clear: “that children are entitled to a relationship with their dad, and it’s good to see the Family Court coming around to that”.

Mr Butler was responding to a report in The Australian yesterday in which Family Court judge Robert Benjamin removed two children, aged nine and seven, from their mother in Tasmania, with whom they had lived since the couple separated in 2005, and sent them to live with their father in Melbourne.

The mother had been the primary carer of the children since birth. The father left Tasmania for Melbourne in 2006. He had access to the children on holidays, but the “changeovers” had become fractious and his daughter was becoming estranged from him.

The judge said the mother had not encouraged her children to have a good relationship with their father.

Under changes to the Family Law Act (1975) introduced by the Howard government, the Family Court is required to apply the presumption that it is in the best interest of the child for the child’s parents to have shared and equal parenting responsibility, unless there is violence.

Solo Mums Australian convenor Elspeth McInnes said Justice Benjamin had not taken into account psychological damage to the children, who had lived solely with their mother since 2005.

“From the child development perspective, it seems extraordinary,” Dr McInnes said.

“It seems the judge is saying that mothers must make their children happy to see their fathers, or else they will be punished. I don’t think such punishment has any regard to the children’s wellbeing.”

Mr Butler said the changes to the act meant fathers were getting better outcomes than they had previously.

“You’re better off now with a judge than you were before, and you’re better off than you would be, if you just accept what your former partner gives you,” he said.

Patricia Merkin, who advocates on behalf of women in Family Court disputes, said the changes were “nothing less than a social engineering experiment to respond to the so-called bias against fathers”.

Barry Williams of the Lone Fathers Association said he dealt every week with fathers “attempting suicide … because they can’t see their children”.

Fathers praise access law | The Australian

« Previous Page — Next Page »