I was surprised that the Herald published a series of articles of its front page over the past couple of days (24-25 Nov 08) which appeared to advocate the clawing back of the 2006 family law reforms (For example, ‘Courts leave young in
danger’, 25 November).
danger’, 25 November).
These reforms had two main aims. Firstly, they placed to the forefront the recognition that family breakdown is best dealt with through non-adversarial procedures like community-based mediation rather than litigation. Secondly, children have the right to care, love, protection and time with both their parents even where these parents can no longer agree to live together. The reforms also seek to implement Australia’s international obligations under Article 16 (1) of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights guaranteeing equal rights for men and women at the dissolution of marriage.
Not only did this series of articles explicitly criticise these objectives by arguing that both mediation and the active role of a father in a child’s life after divorce can be harmful, but the articles failed to present the standpoint of
anyone presenting a contrary view.
anyone presenting a contrary view.
The reporting also ignores the thrust of your newspaper’s earlier article by Adele Horin (‘Shared care: Quality is what matters most’, 6 November) highlighting recent research from the Australian National University showing that shared care is not harmful to children and outcomes for parents are often better in such arrangements.
The creation of a more humane family law system two years ago is already transforming lives for the better by reducing the incidence of family law litigation, forestalling entrenched conflict over custody and ensuring the ongoing role of fathers in their children’s lives after separation. By using specious domestic violence arguments to seek to return to the bad old days of the 1970s’ family law system, the so-called experts quoted appear to want to go back to a model that as a society we have long since moved on from.
The only winners from such a retrograde step would be lawyers and the more extreme women’s advocacy groups – certainly not the children who are being freed from ongoing conflict and denial of their right to know and be loved by both their parents.
Roger Smith, CLA member, Gordon ACT