House of I~ pr’c~iitativ~ Standing Committeeon Family ~ Corr n unt1 Affairs

Submission No:.. ~ 044Date Receiv~d: .~ 7 — 8’Q..3Secretary: .. ....

Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs

Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangements in theEvent of Family Separation

—n

Submissionprepared by Women’sLegal Service,BrisbaneAugust,2003

I”

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS IN SUBMISSION

1. Family lawsmust addressthe needsof the difficult cases

Any recommendationoftheCommitteeregardingthe law mustaddressthedynamicsofcasesofparentsin high conflict wherethereareallegationsof domesticviolenceandchild abuseandothercomplexsocialproblems.

2. Equaltime sharedparentingshouldnot be a rebuttablepresumption

Ourclients’ experiencesandthesocialresearchwehaveaccessedsuggestthat ‘equaltime’ sharedparentingis only feasiblein a smallminority ofcases.WLS is vehementlyopposedto the ideaof equaltimebeing elevatedto a rebuttablepresumption.

3. Equaltime sharedparentingdoesnot occurin intactfamilies

Equaltime sharedparentingafterseparationis an extremelyradicalconcept. It shouldnot be seenasa conservativepositionwhich supportsthecurrentpaternalrole. It is ahugeanduntestedshift awayfrom therealityof existing family structures— bothbeforeandafterseparation— for mostfamilies.

4. Many fathers are already involved meaningfully with their children afterseparation

Thecurrentlaw allows committedandinvolved fathersto continueto playamajorrole inthe lives oftheirchildrenafterseparation.Thereis no evidenceto suggestthat it is thelaw whichpreventsfathersfrom involvement,exceptin extremecases.

5. The Family Law Act should include therole ofprimary carer asafactorrelevant to thebestinterestsofa child

WLS recommendsthe iifclusion of a provisionin theFamilyLawActwhich allows theroleofprimarycarerto b& includedin the list of factorsrelevantto considerationof thebestinterestsofchildren.

6. A rebuttable presumption of equal sharedcare will increasethe difficulty formothers to passthelegal aid merits test.

Webelievethatanyrebuttablepresumptionaboutsharedparentingwouldmakeit evenmoredifficult for survivorsofdomesticviolenceto satisfythemerits testat legal aidcommissions.

7. Roleplayersdo not understandthepostseparation impact of domesticviolenceon the conduct ofthevictim.

2

Training is requiredforroleplayersin the family law systemon the impactofdomesticviolenceon thepostseparationconductofwomensurvivors.

8. Consideration should be given to reforming the FLA to enhanceprotectionfrom violence

Therewould appearto be threecritical stepsrequiredin law reformintendedto enhanceprotectionagainstviolence:

(a) wherefamily violencehasbeenallegedthecourtshouldtakeearlystepstodeterminewhether,on theevidenceavailable,theviolenceis proved;

(b) if it is provedthereshouldbea rebuttablepresumptionthat residenceorsharedcareinvolving theabuserwill notbein thechild’s bestinterests;and

(c) acontactordercanonly be madein favouroftheabuserif thecourtissatisfiedthatcontactwill be safe.

9. A rebuttable presumption about sharedcarewill diminish the importance ofthe section68F(2) factors.

Thesection68F(2)factorsto be consideredwhendeterminingwhatis in thebestinterestsof a child arelikely to losesignificanceif arebuttablepresumptionaboutsharedparentingis introduced.

10. A rebuttable presumption about sharedcarewill diminish the importance oftheindividual circumstancesof eachchild

Thechangein focusof argumentis likely to meanthat therewill be adiminutionin theexaminationofthe individualcircumstancesofeachchild.

11. A rebuttable presumption about sharedcarewill be usedas a weaponbyabusiveparents

WLS is concernedthat-it is abusivemen— exactlythewrongkind offathersfor sharedcarearrangements— whowill seekto usethepresumptionif it wereintroduced.

12. A rebuttable presumption about sharedcare will influence out ofcourtnegotiations.

Theexistenceofarebuttablepresumptionofequaltimemayforcesomeparentsto‘agree’ to inappropriatesharingarrangementswhichmayultimatelybebreachedandbecomethe subjectof acrimoniousenforcementactions.

3

13. A rebuttable presumption about sharedcarewill lead to an increaseinlitigation

Theintroductionofa rebuttablepresumptionfor equaltimesharedcarewould leadto anincreasein litigation in theFamily Court, FederalMagistratesServiceandlocalMagistratesCourts. Theincreasewould occuracrossarangeofproceedings,but inparticular;residenceand contactcases,enforcements,contraventionsandlocationandrecoveryorders.

14. Equal time sharedcare is not fair to somechildren

WLS is concernedthat arebuttablepresumptionofequaltimewill placepressureonchildrento “deliver fairness”to theirparents.

15. If statutoryrecognitionof shareparentingis to occur,therearesomeessentialfeaturesto include.

If any mentionis to bemadeof ‘sharedparenting’ in the law, therearefouressentialfeaturesto considerin thecontextofthis Inquiry:

(a) it mustnotbearebuttablepresumption;

(b) theremustbeno suggestionofspecifictime splitting;

(c) theremustbeastagedlegislativeprocessto ensurethatonly suitablefamiliesconsidertheoption— onesfor whomit couldwork — if it is in theinterestsofthe individual children- positiveprerequisites;and

(d) therewould needto be exclusionsfor familiesfor whomthearrangement

wouldnotwork (exclusoryprovisions).

16. Child supportreformneedscareful socialandeconomicresearch

Theresultsof well-constructedresearchinto thelinks betweencontactandchild support,

suchastheworkoftheAIFS, mustbe consideredwhenformulatingchild supportpolicy.17. Any legislativereform must be include protective provisions.

It wouldbeverydangerousfor womenandchildrenif legislationwereintroducedwhichfurtherpromotedsharedcareafterseparation,unlessthis wasdonetogetherwithprovisionswhichsetout a moredetailedandeffectiveprocessfordealingwithallegationsofabuse.

18. A further processof detailedresearchandconsultation should beundertaken before any changesare madeto the law about sharedparenting.

4

If theCommitteewishesto suggestchange,weconsiderthat thefollowing ideasareessential:

(a) Theremustbe extensivecommunityconsultationaboutthedetailofanymodel which is suggested.

(b) TheWashingtonStatemodel shouldbe furtherresearched.

(c) Thetotal packageandbalanceof anylegislativemodelsexaminedmustbeunderstood.

5

Inquiry into Child CustodyArrangements in the

Event of Family Separation

Submissionfrom Women’s Legal Service,Brisbane.

BACKGROUND TO WOMEN’S LEGAL SERVICE

Thankyou fortheopportunityto submitto this Inquiry.

TheWomen’sLegal Service(WLS) is aBrisbanebasedcommunitylegal centrewhichhasbeenoperatingsince1984. Duringthe2001-02yearweprovidedadviceto over6,000 women. Over80%ofour advicesarein family law, with themainissuesbeingdomesticviolence,residence,contactandpropertyentitlements.Becauseof ourtelephoneadviceservicemorethan30%of ourclientsarefrom outsidetheBrisbanemetropolitanarea. Ourclientscomefrom diverseracial,culturalandreligiousbackgrounds,anduntil recentlywe hada specificallyfundedpositionfor asolicitor towork with womenwith disabilities.

We alsoundertakecommunityeducationandcommunitydevelopmentwork throughwhichwe learnaboutawide rangeofwomen’sexperiencesin thefamily law system.

During thelate 1 990sWLS wascloselyinvolvedwith aresearchprojectaboutcontactarrangementsfor children. In 2000wepublisheda reporton this researchentitledUnacceptableRisk:A Reporton child contactarrangementswherethereis violenceinthefamily. We haveprovided10 copiesof UnacceptableRiskto theCommitteeSecretariatfor themembersof theCommittee.

STRUCTURE OF SUBMISSION

Althoughthetime framehasbeevery tight, wehavetakentheopportunityto consultwithasmall groupof colleaguesabouttheideasput forwardin this submission.Thepeopleconsultedincludemembegsofourmanagementcommittee,oneof whomis apracticingfamily lawyer,asocialworkerin privatepracticeandanumberofresearchers.

Part I — Origins of Inquiry: Who AdvocatesChange?

This submissionwill firstly provide a snapshotofthegroupsorpeoplein Australiawhoarelikely to be advocatingfor thekinds ofchangesimplicit in theTermsof Reference(ToR). Wewill endeavourto includeabriefanalysisofwheresomegenuinegrievancesmaylie, as well asadiscussionaboutthosewhosegrievancesmaybeless legitimateorcreatedby theirownbehaviour.

6

Part II— Terms of ReferenceSecondly,we will addresstheToRbyreferenceto ourclient work, ourcommunity

educationanddevelopmentwork andour research.

Part III — Ideasfrom an Existing Model

Thirdly, wewill analysea statutefrom WashingtonStatein theUnited Statesof Americawhichwebelievemayansweranimportantquestionwhichlies behindthis inquiry:

How do wegetmoreseparatedAustralianfamilies for whom sharedparentingcouldwork, to considerthispossibility?

Thetext ofthestatuteis setout atannexure‘A’.

7

PART I - ORIGINS OF INQUIRY: WHO ADVOCATES CHANGE?

1.1. Introduction

TheReportoftheFamily Law PathwaysAdvisoryGroup,Out oftheMaze,(‘Pathways’)notedthatmenandmen’sadvocacygroups“dominatedboth thewrittensubmissionsandattendanceatconsumerforums”:

It wasevidentthat manymenfelt angry,frustratedandhopeless.Their angerwasdirectedatboththesystem(particularlythelaw, lawyers,courtsandtheChildSupportAgency)andex-partners(who,theyfelt, deservedtheirangerfor arangeofreasonsincluding leavingtherelationship,denyingcontactormaking falseallegations). ... theyfelt that thesystemwasunfairandbiasedagainstmen ...

In relationto residence,manymenexpressedtheview that thepresumptionin lawshouldbethat childrenlive with eachparenton anequal-timebasis(oftenexpressedas ~5O:5O~).1

Presumablyto someextentthemenwho raisedtheseconcernswith thePathwaysGroupareamongstthosewhohaveagitatedfor this Inquiry. Thisopensthequestion:is thereamajorsocialproblemin Australiawherebycommittedandwilling fathersarebeingdeniedtheopportunityto haveameaningfulrelationshipwith theirchildrenafterseparation?

1.2. Father-Child RelationshipsAfter Separation

A largemajorityofAustralianmenwho areseparated(64%)havecontactwith theirchildren2andalmostthreequartersofthosemenhavechildrenstayingovernightwiththem.3 Someotherrecentstudiessuggestsevenhigherlevelsof contactoccurring:

severalyearsafterseparationthemajorityoftoday’sAustraliannon-residentfathersremainin frequentcontactwith theirsonordaughterofprimaryschoolage. This indicatesasubstantialincreasein the frequencyof... fathers’contact... in the lasttwo decades.... thereis a clearpatternthatmoreandmorenonresidentfathersareremainingin children’slives.4

It seemsthat, in fact:

• manyfathershavehigh levelsofon-goinginvolvementwith theirchildrenafterseparation;and

• theamountof contactandthenumbersoffathersandchildrenconcernedhaveincreasedin recenttimes.

8

But weknow thereis a disaffectedgroupandthe researchcurrentlybeingconductedbytheAustralianInstituteof Family Studies(AIFS) into contactarrangementsmayprovidesomeclues. Drawingondatafrom theHousehold,IncomeandLabourDynamicsinAustralia(HILDA) Survey,the researcherswereableto analysereportsfrom over 1,000separatedparentswith a varietyofarrangementsfor thechildren.

Thefollowing diagramshowsthe level ofsatisfactionexperiencedby theparentsinrespectof contact,dependingon the typeofcontactin place.5

I En~Mierene~enough Enctqiiteenou~i OAboLtri~ EAlittletoomich Ov~eytooniich INotes: ‘little or no contact’ = 0-17nights/days;‘mid-range’= 18-109 nights/days;‘sharedcare’= 110+nights/days.

Fromthis graph it canbeseenthat thereis alreadyagroup(althoughit is small innumber)implementinga sharedcareregimeand86% ofthemothersand56%of thefathersin this groupthoughtthis wasaboutright in termsofthe timeeachparentspentwith thechildren. Thesepeopledid not requirespeciallawsto put theirsharedparentingarrangementsin placeandobviouslyfoundthecurrentsystemsufficiently flexible forthis arrangementto be implemented.

1.2.1. WHO MAY BE DISCONTENTED?

Therearealsosignificantnumbersofparentswhowant thefatherto havemore contact.10%ofmothersand8% offathersin the little orno contactgroupand23% ofmothersand27%of fathersin themid-rangegroupbelievethereis not quite enoughcontact.

Littiealb NIdF~ige LittiecrNo NEdRaigeCo~ad

F~sidentMc~hers Non-residert F~hers I

9

Thesepeoplearelikely to be theoneswho areableto negotiateincreasesandvariationsin contactover time.

Thetensionsthat leadto political agitationaremoreapparentin thecontrastingfigureswhichshowthat 5% ofmothersin thelittle orno contactgroupthink thereis too muchcontact,whereas83%offathersin that groupthink thereis not enough. Evenin themid-rangegroupstressesareevident. 6% ofthemothersbelievethereis too muchcontactwhile 74%ofthefatherssaythereis notenough.6

To acertainextent,someof thewomenin thesegroupsarelikely to sharecharacteristicswith someofourclients;womenwhoweresubjectedto domesticviolenceby theirformerpartnerandwhohavesufferedon-goingviolencesincetheseparation.Despitethis theyareobliged, eitherby courtorderorfearofreprisal,to providethechildrenforcontact. Within this groupwould be foundsomemotherswho, attimes, fail to complywith contactorders.

Someofthemenin thesegroupsmayhavegenuinegrievances;menwho wishto play amoreactiverolein thechildren’slives but arepreventedfrom so doingby limitedcontact. Thismaybebecauseofunresolvedconflict, geographicaldistanceorotherreasons.However,othermenmayhavebeenlimited in theamountof theircontactbythesystemitself, becauseallegationsofviolence,abuseorotherseriousconcernshavebeenprovento thesatisfactionofacourtorotherauthority.

1.2.2. WHAT GROUPS COULD CONTEMPLATE SHARED PARENTING?

The sadirony is that thegroupsofmenandwomenwhoareexperiencingtensionandstressaboutthecontactarrangementsareexactlytheparentsfor whosechildrensharedparentingwouldnotbehappyorsuccessful.Thesemaybesomeof thepeoplewhoareadvocatingchangeto the law, but theyarealsothepeoplewho shouldnot try to establisha sharedparentingarrangement.

Theseparentsaregenerallyonesinvolvedin ‘high conflict’ situationsandcases. In aUSA studyon ‘high conflict divorce’ cases,eminentresearcher,JanetJohnson,concludedthat:

Children [in high conflict cases]needcustodyandaccessarrangementsthatminimizethepotentialfor ongoinginter-parentalconflict.

[In thesecases] ... custodyarrangementsshouldallow parentsto disengagefromtheirconflict with eachotheranddevelopparallelandseparateparentingrelationshipswith theirchildren ...

A clearlyspecifiedregularvisitationplanis crucial, andtheneedfor shareddecision-makinganddirect communicationshouldbekept to aminimum.

10

Thesehighconflict familieswill oftenenterandre-enterthecourtsystemmanytimes.Theyrequiretight casemanagementandon-goingsupportandassistanceoutsidethe

7legalsystem. It was for thesefamilies that theMagellansystemofcasemanagementwasdeveloped.This groupmayfeel aggrieved,but theyshouldnotbe thedriving forcebehindchangesto the law aimedat encompassingidealssuchas sharedparentingafterseparation.

1.3. Family Law Policy

WLS haslongbeenconcernedthat family law policy is oftencreatedfor thepeoplewhodo notneedto resortto theformal system. Whenthishappensit meansthat thelaw maybeunder-developedor inapplicablefor thecasesatthe ‘hardedges’offamily law. In thisInquiry it ispossiblethatthereis a conflictedminority ofparentsarguingforchangestothelaw that wouldonlybeuseful for themostamicableminority. In fact, thelaw needsto covertheproblemswhicharisein thehigh conflict families.

As DrJohnsonnoted:

family law aswell ascourtpoliciesareoftenjustifiedbyresearchfindingsfrom thebroadpopulationandareinsufficientlybackedby studiesof thespecialsubgroupofthedivorcingpopulationto which theyaremostfrequentlyapplied,that is, to familiesof high-conflictdivorce.8

Thelaw mustprovidefor thegroupin high conflict; forexample,wherethereareallegationsofdomesticviolenceandchild abuseandothercomplexsocialproblems. Ifthe law doesnotaddressthis groupit will fail theveryclientsof thesystem.

KeyPoint 1

Any recommendationof the Committeeregarding law reform must addressthedynamicsof casesof parentsin high conflict where there are allegationsofdomesticviolenceand child abuseand other complexsocialproblems.

11

PART II- TERMS OF REFERENCE

Having regard to the Government’s recent responseto the Report of the FamilyLaw Pathways Advisory Group, the Committee should inquire into, report on andmakerecommendationsfor action:

ToR (a)(i) Rebuttable Presumption ofEqual Time

Given that the best interestsof the child are the paramountconsiderationwhat otherfactors shouldbe taken into accountin decidingthe respectivetime each parent should spend with their children post separation, inparticularwhetherthere shouldbe a presumptionthat children will spendequal time with each parent and, if so, in what circumstancessuch apresumptioncouldberebutted.

2.1. Introduction

Therearethreemajorissuescapturedin thefirst ToR:

1. sharedparentingas a legislatedconceptoroptionfor separatedparents;

2. howto determineappropriateamountsoftimewith eachparentin suchanarrangement;and

3. thatequaltime shouldbe a rebuttablepresumption

WLS hasno problemswith theideaofsharedparentingbecausewe seeit aspossibleinall sortsof situations. Evenwhereparentshaveareasonably‘standard’contactregimenin place,if thoseparentsareableto communicateandnot overly conflicted,theywill besharingtheparentingofthechildren. Forexample,aparentwho seesthechildreneverysecondweekend,halfthe~schoolholidays,hasreasonablyopentelephonecontact,openaccessto theschoolandQtherspecialoccasionvisitswill be playing avital role in thechildren’slives. Sharedparentingis not a night-countingexercise— it is an emotionalandpsychologicalconcept.

WhatWLS is concernedaboutis theideathat equaltime couldbecomearebuttablepresumption.This is thenub of theInquiry. This is totallydifferentto theideaofincludingsharedparentingasa legislatedconcept. Suchapresumptionbecomesastartingpoint from whichall alternativepropositionsmustbe argued— aconstantpointofdeparture.

12

Key Point 2

Our clients’ experiencesand the social researchwe have accessedsuggestthat‘equal time’ sharedparenting is only feasiblein a small minority of cases.WLS isvehementlyopposedto the idea ofequal time being elevatedto a rebuttablepresumption.

2.1.1. MORE THAN SEMANTICS

To acertainextentthis first ToR in somewhatmisconceived.AlthoughtheToR seemstoimply thatthebestinterestsof childrenshouldremaintheparamountconsideration,theuseoftheword“other” before“factors” suggeststhat thefactorsto be lookedat aredifferentfrom (or“other” than)thebestinterestsofthechild. Currentlythesection68F(2)factorsoftheFamilyLawAct(FLA) arethefactorsto be consideredby thecourtto determinewhatis in thebestinterestsof thechild — theyaresubsumedunderthatconcept— not separatefrom it.

Further,it is somewhatdisturbingthat theInquiry usesthe‘old’ terminologyof ‘custody’ratherthanthecontemporarytermof ‘residence’. Thismayserveto emphasisetheattitudeof childrenasproperty— an attitudethat the 1995amendmentsaimedtodiminish.

2.2. Sharing Patterns In Intact Families

Lyn Craighasuseddatafrom theAustralianBureauofStatisticsTime UseSurveyin1997 to undertakesomecalculationsinto howmothersandfathersspendtime with theirchildrenin intactfamilies.9 Below is atablewhichsummarisessomeofher findings.

13

PRIMARY ACTIVITY PRIMARY & SECONDARYACTIVITY

CHILDCARE ACTIVITYCATEGORY

FATHER MOTHER FATHER MOTHER

Interactive care - % of childtime

40% 22% 30% 25%

Interactivecare— absolutetime 24 mins 40 mins 36 mins 1 hour,30mins

Physicalcare-%ofchildtime 31% 51% 13% 21%Physicalcare— absolutetime 18 mins 1 hour,32

mins16 mins 1 hour,15

minsTravel & communication—% ofchild time

13% 17% 5% 7%

Travel& communication—absolutetime

8 mins 30 mins 6 mins 25 mins

Passivecare - % of child time 16% 10% 52% 47%Passivecare — absolute time 10 mins 18 mins 1 hour, 2

mins2 hours, 50mins

TOTAL % of CHILD TIME 100% 100% 100% 100%TOTAL — ABSOLUTETIME

1 hour 3 hours 2 hours 6 hours

In termsofabsolutetime spenton child careas aprimaryactivity, menspendaboutonehourperday andwomenspendthreehoursperday. Whenprimaryandsecondarychildcaretime arecombined,fathersundertakea total of2 hourswhile mothersdo 6 hours.Despitechangesin employmentpatternsfor womenanddomesticpatternsfor men,mostmothersstill do thebulk ofthe ‘work’ andnurturingassociatedwith children;andthis ischildren’sexperiencesandexpectationsoftheirrespectiveparents.

Mothersalsospendmuchmoretimealonewith children. Theyspendnearlyhalftheirtimewith childrenalonewith them,whereasfathers,who spendlesstime with childrenanyway,areonly alonewith thechildrenfor 16-18%ofthat time.10

Thereforemanychildren~onlystartto spendsignificanttime alonewith theirfatheriftheirparentsseparate.Lnscmecasesthis canleadto a newandmoremeaningfulrelationshipbetweenthechildrenandtheir father— but it mayneedtimeandcarefulnurturing. Somefathersarenotcapableof this. It is, of course,alsotruethat somemothersarenot capableofnurturingtheirchildrensafely.

Key Point 3

Equal time sharedparenting after separation is an extremelyradical concept. Itshould not be seenas a conservativepositionwhich supports thecurrent paternalrole. It is a hugeand untestedshift away from the reality ofexisting familystructures — both beforeand after separation — for mostfamilies.

14

2.3. What Post-separationChild Arrangements are Common Now?

In a recentAustralianstudyof 260 nonresidentfathers,BruceHawthornefoundthefollowing patternsof contact11:

NON-RESIDENTIAL FATHER’S CONTACT WITH CHILDREN IN PREvIOUSYEARFREQUENCY OFCONTACT INPREVIOUS YEAR

PERCENTAGE LEVEL OFCONTACT

PERCENTAGE

None at all 6.5 Low 11.5Once 4.7Severaltimes 13.5 Medium 58.9ito 3 times permonth

25.8

Onceper week 18.2 High 29.6More than onceper week

31.3

This studymayshowsomesamplebiasbecauseit reliedpartlyon divorces(thereissomeevidencethat fatherswho weremarriedto themothersof childrenremainmoreconnected)andthecriteriausedfor thestudypossiblyledto amoreeducatedandfinanciallycomfortablegroupbeingincluded. However,Hawthornealsonotedthat:

It seemedreasonableto expectthat thefatherswhohadsomeaxeto grindor whosawthemselvesasthwartedby theirchild’s motherin their efforts to beinvolvedwith theirchild would be likely to respond[to thestudy].12

This wasnot thecaseand“only afewfathersventedstrongangertowardstheirformerpartners,laying responsibilityattheir feet for lackofcontactorinvolvement”.’3 This isconsistentwith our client work - ie mostwomenwe seeinitially want contactto occur.

Duringtheresearchfor UnacceptableRiskwe investigatedmothers’attitudestowardscontact. It wasnotablethat, notwithstandingtheviolencewhich mayhavebeenexperienced,mostofthefocusgroupparticipantsin ourstudyinitially wantedthechildrento havesomecontactwith theirfatherandan on-goingrelationshipwith himafterseparation. Indeed,someof thewomenseemedto think separatelyabouttheviolenceto themselvesandthesafetyof theirchildren. Theythoughtthat on-goingcontactwith their fatherwouldbepositive for thechildrenandtheyencouragedthis.14

In anotherrecentAustralianstudywomenhaddoneeverythingpossibleto facilitatecontactatfirst, including:

. compromisingtheir safetyby allowing contactattheirhome;

15

waiting for hours in publicplaces;

• askingrelativesandfriendsto supervise;and

• onewoman evenboughtbunk bedsfor the fathersothechildrencouldstayovernight’5

In the UnacceptableRiskresearchit wasonly aftertherealisationthat thechildrenwereunsafethat thewomenwantedto changethesearrangements.Generallythewomenwereseekingwaysto enableon-goingcontactwith safetyassured.This could involvesupervisedcontact,but occasionallymeantthat thewomensoughtto terminatecontact.

Manywomenfoundit difficult to havethehistoryof violencetakeninto accountby theFamilyCourt andotherdecision-makers,althoughin somecasescontactis stoppedby

16thecourt. It mustbesaidthat mothersarealsosometimesorderedto havelimited ornocontactwith theirchildrenwhentheirconductis foundto be abusive.

Key Point 4

In summaryit seemsthatthe current law allows committed and involved fatherstocontinue to play a major role in the lives oftheir children after separation. There isno evidenceto suggestthat it is the law which preventsfathers from involvement,exceptin extremecases.

2.4. What are the Issuesfor Women?

UnacceptableRiskalsoidentifiedanissuewhichour clientwork reveals— that thefamilylaw systemtendsto focuson thepost-separationattitudeof themothertowardsgivingcontactto thefather.’7 Thiscandisplaceexaminationofthewoman’srole asprimarycarerof thechildrenand canminimisetherelevanceof violenceby thefather.

2.4.1. LACK OFRELEVANCE OF ROLE OF PRIMARY CARER

Despitetheoppressiveat~nospherein whichtheylived, it wasclearthatall ofthefocusgroupparticipantsin UnacceptableRiskweretheprimarycarersoftheirchildrenduringthecurrencyoftheirrelationshipsandtheyexpected,andwanted,this to continueafterseparation.Many ofthewomenreportedthat, prior to theseparation,thechildren’sfatherwasnot involved in thecareofthechildren,didnot participatein theirdaily routinesandwasuninterestedin thechildren’sexperiences.

16

Thewomenreportedthat thefathersgenerallyexpresseda desireto havecontactwiththeirchildren,andsomeevenwantedresidence,no matterhow minimal theirrole in theirchildren’sdaily lives beforeseparation.Whenviolentpartners,whohavespentlittletime alonewith thechildren,suddenlydemandlongperiodsofcontactafteraseparati6n,this causesenormousconcernfor women. Theyhavenever,or rarely,seentheir formerpartnersdisplaytheskills necessaryforparentingsuchasbeingchild-centredin decision-making,beinginterestedandinvolved in thechildren’slives ordisplayingtheorganisationalskills necessaryin runninga homeincludingcooking,washingandothergeneraldomesticchores. Themenmaybe living in accommodationwhich is unsuitablefor children. Theymayrarelyexerciseaffectionatebehavioursuchashuggingor stayingquietlywith a childwho is disturbedandcannotsleep.

Key Point 5

WLS recommendsthe inclusion ofa provision in theFamily LawActwhich allowsthe role ofprimary carer to be included in the list offactors relevanttoconsideration ofthe bestinterests ofchildren.

2.4.2. LACK OF RELEVANCE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Ourclient work showsthatkeyplayersin thefamily law systemdo not necessarilytakeahistoryof domesticviolenceinto accountto theextentrequiredto protectsurvivorsandthechildren.

CaseStudy1

Recentlya womanconsultedWLSaboutherprospectsofappealagainstan ordergrantingresidencyto thefatheroftwo little girls aged6 and4. (Wewill call themotherMaryandthefatherKevinfor thepurposeofthissubmission.)

Althoughwefindthatsomefamily reportsdo notfully discussdomesticviolenceallegationsraisedby theparties, thereport in thiscasedid — partly becauseKevinwassoopenabouthis own violence:

Kevin ... “preseniedaspleasantandcooperative,althoughsomewhatnervousatfirst. ... Oncelie relaxedandfeltfreeto tell his story his accountofthemarriagewasverysimilar to Mary ‘s. Theastoundingaspectofthiswasthathe clearlyfelthe could]ust~ytheviolenceandeffortsto controldisplayedby him towardsBelindaduring themarriage.

Hespokein positiveandappropriatetermsabouthis daughtersbuthis attitudetoBelindaraisesconcernsabouthis attitudeto womenin generalandhowthismightimpacton thegirls.”

Formerneighboursgaveclearevidenceofdenigratingverbalabusedaily. TherewasnoquestionthatMary wasa survivorofseriousdomesticviolence.

17

Giventhegenerallyacceptedlong termeffectsofdomesticviolenceon women,it is notreallysurprisingthatMarykeptonperformingbadly in theassessmentsofher. Both thefamily reportwriter andthejudgeformeda negativeviewofher.

The secondfamily report said:

Mary demonstratedgreatd~ficultycommunicatingclearly, havingan extremelycircuitousmannerofconversing,her voiceoftenfadingawayandbecominginaudiblebeforesentenceswerecompleteandbeforethelogic ofher commentscouldbe understood.

I again notedMary ‘s veryoddmannerofinteraction— evenwith her daughters.Shecontinuedto bevery tentativein hersuggestionsto them,apparentlylackingconfidenceandassertiveness.Ifelt thatherdemeanourwouldnot instillconfidencein thegirls aboutherparentingor abouttheirsecurityin hercare.

Herewe beginto seeafamiliarpatternemerging. In thefamily law systema womancanloseresidenceofherchildrenpartly becauseoftheeffectofthedomesticviolenceinflictedon herby thechildren‘sfather.

The trialjudgewas not impressedwith thecredibility ofMary. Hecommentedthat “insomeinstancesshewasbeingdeliberatelydishonest,on otheroccasionsshesimplylackedinsightinto herbehaviour.” Theremaybemanyreasonsfor thiswhich relatetotheviolencewith whichMaryhas lived.

Thejudgedid demonstratesomeinsight into thepossibleimpactofKevin~sconductonthegirls. In respectofs68F(2)(e)“the capacityofeachparent ... to providefor theneedsofthechild, includingemotionalandintellectualneeds”herecognisedthatKevin‘s attitudemaynot be limited to this relationshipandremarked:

IfKevinwasto engagein verbalabusein a newrelationshipto anythinglike theextenthedid during theperiodofthe relationshipwith theapplicant, it wouldbea mostunfortunateenvironmentfor thegirls to beplacedin.

However,whendeliveringhis Reasonsfor Judgment,thejudgeappearsto haveignoredtheevidenceofdomesticviolence.In respectofthetwoprovisionsofsection68F(2)which relatetofamily violencehesaid “No comment‘~ therebyrenderingthehistoryofdomesticviolenceinvisibleandirrelevantto thedecision-making.

It is alsoconcerningto notethat, despitetheacknowledgedviolence,thefamily reportwriter suggesteda “7 day sharedcarearrangement“. It is our opinion thatthiswouldnothavebeenin thegirls’ bestinterestsgiventhehistory ofviolenceandconflict. Thejudgerejectedthesharedcareproposal- andinsteadgrantedresidenceto Kevin, withMary to havecontacteverysecondweekfrom Thursdayafterschoolto Mondaymorning.

18

Impact on eligibility for legal aid

This minimizationoftherelevanceof domesticviolenceby thesystemis alsoapparent.whenwomenapplyfor legal aid in parentingcases.It is clearfrom Women’sLegalServicesaroundAustraliathat thereareseriousproblemswith the availability of legal aidforrepresentationin family law proceedings.Currentdataon self-representationin theFamily Court indicatesthat nearlyhalfof thelitigantsareself-represented“at somestage

,,I 8during theircase

Oneof thewaysby which legalaid commissionscontroltheir expenditureis by imposinga ‘merits’ teston applicationsfor legal aid. Although thereareguidelinesfor thesetests,theyactuallyallow for significantexerciseofdiscretionby legal aidgrantsofficers. Inparticular,whereamotheris seekinga limited orno contactordershehasdifficultyestablishinggroundsunderthe‘merit’ test. Further,partiesreachthe ‘cap’ of$10,000expenditureper file quite quickly in heavilylitigatedcases— oftenleavingthepartiesself-representingbythetime ofthefinal trial.

Legal Aid Queensland(LAQ) implementsits merits testvery rigorously. Recentresearchfor NationalLegal Aid into therelationshipbetweenlegalaid funding andself-representinglitigants (SRLs)in theFamily Court aroundAustraliaindicatesthat theSRLsin Brisbane“were morelikely thanothersto citemerits asthereasonfor rejectionof theirlegal aid application”.19This meansthatmanyof ourclientsareforcedtorepresentthemselvesin courtwhenthereis ahistoryofdomesticviolence.

Key Point 6

We believethat any rebuttable presumption about sharedparenting would make iteven more difficult for survivors ofdomesticviolenceto satisfy the merits testatlegal aid commissions.

Firstly, this will meanthatmoremothersarelikely to feel pressuredinto settlingcaseswith ‘consent’orderswhich do not really reflecttheir safetyconcerns.Suchordersfrequentlycreatemorelitigation andconflict in the future.

Secondly,it will leadto i~ore SRLsin thefamily law system,whichwill exacerbatefrustrationanddelay. Further,becauseourlegal systemis basedon precedent,thewholesystemis affectedwhenlegal argumentis not facilitatedin halfofthecases.Meaningfuljurisprudencedependson lawyersarguingsomeofthemorecomplexcases.

2.4.3. LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF IMPACT OF VIOLENCE ON POST-SEPARTION CONDUCT OF WOMEN

Ourclient work andresearchhastaughtusthat thereareanumberof featuresaboutfamily violencenotwell understoodby family law systemdecision-makers.Oneofthe

19

mostimportantoftheseis that living with domesticviolenceaffectsthepost-separationbehaviourofwomen.

In CaseStudy I neitherthejudgenorthefamily reportwriter demonstrateddeepawarenessof thepossiblelinks betweentheapparentlynegativeaspectsof themother’sbehaviourandtheviolenceto whichshehadbeensubjected.

Conductofwomendomesticviolencesurvivorswhich is associatedwith attemptingtosecuresafetyfor themselvesandprotectionfor theirchildrenis oftenmisinterpretedbykeydecision-makers.Whenawomanhaslived with violence,it is difficult for hertotrust theabuser. But thesystemasksherto do this, encouragingherto forge anewrelationshipfor thechildrenwith their fathernowthat theparentshaveseparated.

In the UnacceptableRiskresearchwomenreportedbeingtold theywereparanoidwhentheyraisedtheirconcernsaboutabuse.Theyalso reportedfeeling that theywere beingjudgedasstupid,maliciousorover-reactingto concernsabouttheirchildren. One familyreportcontainsthesewords:

She [the children’smother] tendedto overreactto somesituations,fed mostlikelyby the paranoiathat has developedas a result of threatsmade to her and thechildren.20

It is hardto understandwhy thatmotherwould not justifiably developFEARif sheandherchildrenhavebeensubjectedto threats.Why is this definedas ‘paranoia’?

Themotherswho havelived with violenceareafraidthat violencetowardsthechildrenmaybe unrestrainedin theirabsenceas theprotector.

KeyPoint 7

Training is required for role players in thefamily law systemon the impact ofdomesticviolenceon the postseparation conduct ofwomensurvivors.

2.5. Law Reform ConsiderationsaboutDomesticViolence

WLS hasreviewedlawsandpracticesfrom otherjurisdictionswhichtakeadifferentapproachto Australiaandspecificallyprioritise therelevantof allegationsof violence:

• theNewZealandGuardianshipAct1968(seeAnnexure‘B’);

• theUSA’s Family Violence:ModelStateCodeproducedby theNationalCouncil ofJuvenileandFamily CourtJudges

20

• theUnitedKingdom’s Guidelinesfor GoodPracticeon ParentalContactwherethere

is DomesticViolence

2.5.1. NEW ZEALAND GUARDIANSHIPA CT1968

Section16B oftheGuardianshipAct1968,whichwasintroducedin 1995, legislativelyprioritisestheissueof safetyfor children. It establishesthatwheretherehasbeendomesticviolence,thecourtcannotmakean orderfor custodyorunsupervisedaccesstotheviolentparty, unlessit is satisfiedthat thechildrenwill be safe.

To assistthecourtin makingadecisionaboutthesafetyofchildrensubsection1 6B(5)setsouta list ofconsiderationsto whichthecourtmusthaveregardincluding:

• thenatureandseriousnessof theviolenceused;• the likelihoodof furtherviolenceoccurring;• thephysicaloremotionalharmcausedto thechild by theviolence;• whethertheotherpartyto theproceedingsconsidersthat thechild will be safewhile

theviolentpartyhascustodyof, or accessto thechild; and• thewishesof thechild.

In a recentevaluationof this reformconductedby theNewZealandMinistry ofJusticeitwasfoundthat the legislationhadimprovedthesafetyofchildren.

Themajorityofkey informantsbelievedthat thenewlegislationhadenhancedthesafetyof thechildreninvolvedin domesticviolence. Thelegislationgavea clearmessagethat childrenin violent family situationswereatrisk andtheirsafetywasahigh priority. It hadimprovedawarenessandknowledgeof domesticviolenceandas aconsequence,children’ssafetyhadbeenenhanced.2’

2.5.2. FAMILY VIOLENCE: MODEL STATE CODE

TheFamily Violence:ModelStateCodeproducedby theUSANationalCouncilofJuvenileandFamily Court Judges22providesastrongblueprintfor family law legislationwheretherehasbeenfaniily violence. Chapter4 dealswith family andchildrenandthemodel provisionscontainrebuttablepresumptionsthat:

• it is not in thebestinterestsofa child to be in thesoleorjoint custodyofaperpetratorof familyviolence(sec401); and

• it is in thebestinterestsof a child to residewith thenon-perpetratorin the locationofthatparent’schoice(sec403).

2.5.3. UNITED KINGDOM - GUIDELINES FOR GOODPRACTICEONPARENTAL CONTACT WHERE THERE IS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

21

In Britain theChildrenAct Sub-CommitteeoftheLord Chancellor’sAdvisoryBoardonFamily Law hasbeenconsultingandreportingon theissueofdomesticviolenceandcontactoverthe lastfew years.A final reportwasdeliveredto theLord ChancellorinFebruary,2000.23 TheSub-committeethenproducedasetof Guidelinesfor GoodPracticeon ParentalContactin CasesWhereThereis DomesticViolencewhichwereendorsedby thegovernmentin March 2001 andarepresentlybeingput into effect.24

TheGuidelinesonly relateto contactcaseswheredomesticviolenceis an issue. Theyseemto assumethat residenceis uncontestedandthequestionis theamountandtypeofcontactto be ordered.This couldbebecausethosearethecasesthatsparkedtheresearchin Britain. In any event,from thepointofview of ourclients,who areoften looking ataresidence/ residencedispute,weconsiderthis distinctionto be somewhatarbitraryandartificial.

Important Featuresofthe Guidelines

Thefirst guidelinerequirescourts to give earlyconsiderationto allegationsof domestic

violenceanddecidewhetherthenatureandeffectoftheviolenceallegedby thecomplainant... issuchasto makeit likely that theorder ... for contactwill beaffectedif theallegationsareproved.

Wherethecourtdecidesin theaffirmative,particularstepsto follow areprovided.

In termsoffinal hearingstheguidelinessaythecourtshould:

whereverpracticable,makefindingsoffactasto thenatureanddegreeoftheviolencewhich is establishedon thebalanceofprobabilitiesandits effect on thechildandtheparentwith thechild is living (1.5(b))

Anotherguidelinelists the ‘mattersto be consideredwherefindingsofdomesticviolencearemade’. Theseinclude:

• theeffectof the~domesticviolence ... on the child and on theparentwith whomthechild is living (1.6(a);and

• whetherornot themotivationof theparentseekingcontactis adesiretopromotethebestinterestsofthechild orasameansof continuinga processofviolenceagainstor intimidationorharassmentoftheotherparent(1.6(b))

An Evaluationof theGuidelineswasrecentlyconducted.This includedsurveyingmanykeystakeholders.Generallytheguidelineshavebeenwell received. In particulartherespondentsmadethefollowing positivepoints:

p.

22

• theyrecognizethe impactofdomesticviolenceon thechild andthat impactmay

nowbe prioritizedmorethanit was;

• nowmoreawarenessof therelevanceof domesticviolenceto contact;

• thesafetyofresidentparentsis receivinghigherpriority;

• thereis amorestructuredfocuson domesticviolence.25

2.5.4. NEED FOR REFORM OF FAMILY LAW ACT

Basedon our clients’ experiences,if anyrebuttablepresumptionwouldbe usefulin theFLA it wouldbeaboutprotectingchildrenandotherfamily membersfrom aviolentparent. It should includetheconceptthat, whencertaintypesofpastbehaviourareproved,automaticconsequenceswill flow.

KeyPoint 8

There would appear to be three critical stepsrequired in law reform intended toenhanceprotection againstviolence:

1. wherefamily violencehas beenallegedthe court should take early stepstodetermine whether, on the evidenceavailable, the violenceis proved;

2. if it is provedthereshouldbea rebuttable presumption that residenceor sharedcare involving theabuserwill not be in the child’s bestinterests; and

3. a contactorder can only be madein favour ofthe abuser if thecourt is satisfiedthat contactwill be safe.

2.6. Legal Concerns

2.6.1. DIMINUTION OF RELEVANCE OF SECTION 68F(2) FACTORS

As discussedin the introduction,we areconcernedaboutthe legalrelevanceof thesection68F(2)FLA factorsif arebuttablepresumptionof sharedparentingfor equaltimewereintroduced. In fact a rebuttablepresumptionassumesthatsharedparentingbyseparatedparentsisusuallyin achild’s bestinterests.It would be for theparentnotdesiringthat outcometo argueagainsttheproposition.

This woulddemandaverydifferent approachto arguingparentingcasesby lawyers. It islikely to sharpenthe focusevenmorevigorouslyon the ‘failings’ of theotherparent,ratherthan ‘selling’ theadvantagesof yourownclient byreferenceto s68F(2). It couldmakefamily law litigation evenmoretoxic.

23

Key Point 9

The section 68F(2) factors to be consideredwhen determining what is in the bestinterests ofa child are likely to losesignificance if a rebuttable presumption aboutsharedparenting is introduced.

2.6.2. LACK OF IMPORTANCE OF CHILDREN’S INDIVIDUALCIRCUMSTANCES

Insteadof discussingthebenefitsofwhat theproposedresidentialparentcanprovide,theevidencewill swingto examiningthelikely disruptionsanddisadvantagesofliving intwo houses.Individual circumstancesrelatedto thechildrenwho arethesubjectof eachcasemaybe overlookedwith thefocuson thenewcentralquestion— “Can sharedcarework here?”ratherthan“What wouldbe in thebestinterestsoftheseparticularchildren?”

Key Point 10

The changein focus ofargument is likely to meanthat there will be a diminution in

the examination ofthe individual circumstancesofeachchild.

2.6.3. WHO WOULD USETHE PRESUMPTION IF IT WERE INTRODUCED?

WLS predicts,aswe correctlypredictedaboutthe 1995 reforms,that abusivemenwouldseesuchamendmentsasintendedto benefitthem. Theywill sayto theirpartners“Youhaveto give thekids to mehalfthetimenow.” If thewomendo not, themenwill litigate— somewillingly representingthemselves.

Interestinglyin arecentstudyon thetopic of sharedcaresomegendereddifferencesemergedwithin afocusgroupofparentswho haveputequaltime sharedparentingarrangementsin place. In respectofthemotivesfor thearrangementsthefathersreferredto theirownrights aspar~nts.By contrast,mothersweregenerallymorechild-focusedandmotivatedby therights ofthechild andthefatherto continuetheirrelationship.26

Key Point 11

WLS is concernedthat it is abusivemen — exactly thewrong kind offathers forsharedcare arrangements— who will seekto usethe presumption if it wereintroduced.

2.6.4. BARGAINING IN THE SHADOW OF THE LAW

24

It is WLS experiencethat changesto thelaw do not only affect outcomesoflitigatedcases— theyalsoinfluenceagreementsmadeby partiesprivately,at mediation,legal aidconferences,throughsolicitors’ negotiationsandin courtcorridors. This is thephenomenonknownas bargaining‘in theshadowofthe law’. Such‘consent’arrangementsarenot reallyvoluntaryandcausemanydifficulties for theparentsandtheirchildrenin thefuture.

Australianresearchinto contactenforcementcasesexemplifiestheproblems.Rhoadesanalysed100 files in which anenforcementapplicationwasfiled in 1999. Theoverwhelmingmajorityofapplicationswereto enforceconsentorders(n=88). Despitethefactthat themostcommonproblemwastheresidentparent’sconcernsaboutdomesticviolence(n=55), 50 of theordershadbeenmadeby consent.In otherwords,eventhoughwomenmaybeworried aboutdomesticviolence,theystill consentto theviolentpartnerhavingcontact. In 32 ofthecasesinvolving domesticviolencetheenforcementproceedingsultimately ledto “more restrictivecontactarrangements”beingimposedon thefather.27

WLS is also concernedthat thecommunitytendsto havean imperfectunderstandingofthesubtletiesof legalissues. The rebuttablepresumptionwouldbecomeknown— butexclusoryfeaturesorfactorswhichrebutthepresumptionwill not be sowell understood.It is likely to meanthat somefamilies try to implementa50:50programwhenit is notatall appropriate.Forsomechildren,thismaybe quitedamagingto theirwelfare.

Key Point 12

The existenceof a rebuttable presumption ofequal time may force someparentsto‘agree’ to inappropriate sharing arrangementswhich may ultimately be breachedand becomethesubject of acrimonious enforcementactions.

2.6.5. INCREASE IN LITIGATION

Whenthe 1995reformswereintroducedthephilosophybehindthechangeswascommendable.It washopedthat the newterminologywould reducenotionsofownershipof childrenwijich thefamily law systemseemedto generate.Further,therewasan intentionto encourageparentsto sharethe responsibilitiesof parenting.

In fact, almosttheoppositeoccurred. Between1997and1999Griffith Universityresearchersexaminedtheimpactof the 1995 reformsby interviewingjudges,registrarsandcounsellorsfrom theFamily Court, solicitors in privatepractice,barristers,LAQandcommunitylegal centres(CLCs).

Thesolicitors specifically identifiedthat thechangeshad led to anincreasein thenumberof contactapplicationsaswell asan increasein theamountof contactsought.Oneof thesolicitors, who takesreferralsfrom men’s rights groups,saidthat manyfatherswhocameby this route ‘had a perceptionthat the legislationentitled themtomorecontactthanpreviously. ... the legislationhashad theeffect that children’s

25

matterswerenow being perceivedincreasinglyasconcernedwith parentalrights andentitlements’28

We anticipatethat any amendmentsofthenatureproposedin theToRwouldbring asurgein litigation; not only whereparentshaverecentlyseparatedbut alsocasesthat havealreadybeento court. Theincidenceofcasesbeingre-openedmaycauseanunprecedentedblockagein thecaseloadoftheFamily Court andtheFederalMagistratesServiceand,to someextent,localMagistratesCourts.

We alsobelievethat sucha presumptionwouldcausemorewomento flee in fearoftheconsequencesof courtproceedingsin which theymaybe self-representing.This wouldleadto morelocation andrecoveryproceedings,moreexpartehearings.

Key Point 13

The introduction of a rebuttable presumption for equal time sharedcare would leadto an increasein litigation in theFamily Court, Federal Magistrates Serviceandlocal Magistrates Courts. The increasewould occur acrossa range of proceedings,but in particular; residenceand contact cases,enforcements,contraventionsandlocation and recovery orders.

2.7. How and When Could Equal Time SharedCare Work?

In theworkoftheAustralianInstituteofFamily Studies(AIFS) on contactarrangements,thefollowing commonfeaturesarefoundin working sharedparentingarrangements:

• themenhavereducedor flexible work arrangements• thewomenwereall in paidwork• theparentslive closeto eachother• theyhadreasonablefinancialresourcesandinfrastructure• a cooperativeparentingstyle• child-focussedarrangements• a degreeofpaternalcompetence• mosthadnotsoughtl~gal intervention29

Otherresearchsuggeststhat theparentswill tendto bebettereducated30and,wewouldsuggestthat it is mostlikely to be possiblein reasonablysmall families— perhapsup to 3or4 childrenatthemost.

Evenwhereafamily seemsappropriatetherearelimiting factors:

• it is unlikelyto be in an infant’s bestintereststo beseparatedfrom his orhermotherfor halfof thetime;

26

• aschildrengrowolder theirsocialliveschangeandexpand. Theywill want to spendlesstime with parentsgenerally. Equaltimeparentingat this stagemayplacestresson thechild (adolescent)to evenlydivide their‘parentavailable’ time;

• thereality maybethat young childrenwill spendsignificantlylongerin formal child-carewhentheyareliving with oneof theparents.Thedesirabilityofthis would needto carefullyassessedfor eachindividual child; and

• newstep-parentsorothersiblingswill complicatearrangements.This mayenrichthelivesof some‘shared’children andcreatemoretensionsandanimosityfor others.

TheAIFS alsoreportedsome‘musings’ aboutfathers’roleswhichsuggestthatcommitted,safefatherswhohavenotbeenstronglyinvolved with thechildrenduring therelationshipcandevelopenhancedrelationshipswith theirchildren:

50:50careaffordsquantitytime,from which quality time canflow; time allows

fathersto envelopandembedin theirchildren’s ~

But it is clearthat:

Theearlierfathersbecomeinvolved in caringfor childrenthemorecompetenttheymayfeelasfathersshouldtheyseparate.Nonetheless,somefathersmaybenefit from support— especiallyin managingroletransitions32

Hereweseetheneedfor newsocialpolicy initiativesto encouragepaternalinvolvementin intact familiessuchasmoreflexible work hoursandmorechild-careplaces.Thereisalsoa needfor educationprogramsto assistseparatedfatherswith parentingskills.

CaseStudy2

WLShasrecentlyprovidedadvice to a woman(sayCathy) who hassomethingcloseto asharedcarearrangementin place— but in inappropriatecircumstances.Thesubjectchild is a boy, Tom,aged8. (Our clientalso hasa 3yearoldgirl to a dWferentfatherandthearrangementsin placethereare amicableandmoretraditional.)

Thecurrentarrangementis that Tomliveswith Cathyfor 8 daysperfortnightandhisfather (Greg)for 6 days.

Cathyis notverywell educatedbut thefamily report which hasbeenpreparedis verypositiveaboutherparentingskills. Sheis verychild-focussed.

Therearemutualdomesticviolenceordersin placesincetherewasa ‘blow-up’ outsidetheschoolat the timeofa change-over.

Cathybuysall ofTom‘s clothesandschoolrequirements.WhenTomis withGregherefusesto takehim to his sport. He alsopaysno childsupportbut receivessomeFTB.

27

Cathyprovidesfor Tomfrom theSingleParentsBenefitshereceivesbecauseoftheyoungersister.

Cathywantsthearrangementsto bechangedto 9 dayswith herandSdayswith Gregbecauseshebelievesthis will be betterfor Tom. Thefamily report supportsthis. Gregwants 7daysperfortnightplus soleparentalresponsibility. He claimsthat Cathyisincapableofmakingdecisions.

Cathyhasbeenunableto obtain legal aidfor the impendingtrial becauseLAQ considersthat “there is nota substantialdispute”— oneoftheprerequisitesto obtaininglegalaidfor aparentingcase.

In ouropinioncaseis typicalofthekinds ofunacceptablesharedcarewhichwouldbecomemorecommonif arebuttablepresumptionofequaltime wereintroduced. Sucharrangementswill be imposedon someparentsby theiruncooperativeanddemandingformerpartnerwho is determinedto gettheirhalf.

2.8. Is Equal Time Shared Care Fair for Children?

Researchinto childrenin sharedcarein theUnitedKingdomby Smartandothersfoundthat childrenin thesearrangementsstartedto takeon therole of ensuringfairnessto theirparents:

... we foundin our interviewswith childrenafterdivorcethat thequestionoffairnessto andfor parentswasparamount.It was asif thesechildrenwerealreadywell versedin thenegotiationsthat arepartofadult family life andmaritalseparation.33

CaseStudy3

Theissueofchildrentakingon theburdenofdistributingthemselvesfairly is ofdeep

concernto WLS. Weare~alreadyseeinginklings ofthis in our case-workIn afamily reportpreparedthisyearthefollowingcommentsaremadeabouta 13 yearold boy (sayPeter):

Peterpresentedasan alert, intelligentandveryguardedyoungperson.Heappearedto be veryaware thathe hasbecomea centralfocusofhis parents’conflict andshowedsignsofhypervigilancein howherrespondedduring theinterviews. He spokeofwantinga “50:50” living arrangementandappearedtobetrying veryhardto pleasebothparents. Atonepoint, he indicatedthathefeltbothparentswouldbe veryupsetWhewasprincipally in theother’scare.However,hefelt thathis motherwouldbe less upsetwith him than hisfather.

28

This maymeanthatPeterwill staywith hisfatherfor all thewrongreasons,or he will go50:50—placinghim constantlyin thewarzonebetweenhisparents.

Smartfoundthat for somechildrensharedcareworks well, butsherecordedthecomplexrealitiesof thesituationfor others. Shedescribeschildrenasmovingacrossemotionalandpsychologicalspacesaswell asphysicalones. It cannotbe easyfor anyoneto live intwo homes.

Herresearchalsoidentifiedthetroubling issuesfacedby childrenfor whomoneparentwasdifficult, unhappyordangerousto be with:

Someof thechildrenwe interviewedhadto spendtimewith aggressive,resentfulordepressedparentsandthis couldbe a problemforthem. Whereas,whentheirparentsstill lived togethertheremight be oneparentwhocouldmediatetheotherparent’smoodsorbehaviour(orevenprotectthechild), afterseparationtheco-parentedchild is obligedto spendtimealonewith theproblematicparentwithouttheotherparentto mediateordeflectsomeoftheproblems.Forsomeofthechildrenthismeantthat theyattemptedto reducethetime theyspentwith theproblematicparent,but thiswasnot alwayseasy,especiallywheretheproblemparentwascommittedto his orherequalsharein thechild.34

Key Point 14

WLS is concernedthat a rebuttable presumption of equal time will placepressure

on children to “deliver fairness” to their parents.

2.9. PossibleLegislativeModel

It seemsclearthat:

50/50 orsharedparentingarrangementsareonly appropriatewhereparentshavegoodrelationsandtheycanharmchildrenwhereparentalrelationsareconflicted.35

Duringourresearchwe wereinterestedto find theparentinglawsfrom Washington.Thereare aspectsofthatmodelwhichmayaddressa varietyofconcernsraisedby thecommunityin respondingto this Inquiry.

Althoughtherearesimilaritiesbetweenthe ‘cultures’ andlegal systemsof AustraliaandtheUSA, thereare alsomanydifferences.Therearefeaturesin themodelwhich areoutof tunewith Australian‘legal lore’. However,we believethat muchcanbe learnedfromstudyingandunderstandingits contentandstructure. It is discussedin detail in Part III.

Key Point 15

29

For all the reasonsdiscussedWLS believesthat, if any mention is to be madeof‘shared parenting’ in the law, there are four essentialfeatures to consider in thecontextof this Inquiry:

1. it must not be a rebuttable presumption;

2. there must be no suggestionof specifictime splitting;

3. there must be a stagedlegislativeprocessto ensurethat only suitable familiesconsiderthe option — onesfor whom it couldwork — if it is in the interests ofthe individual children (positive prerequisites); and

4. there would need to be exclusionsfor families for whom thearrangementwould not work (exclusoryprovisions).

30

bR (a)(ii) Contact with Personsother than Parents

Giventhat thebestinterestsof the child arethe paramountconsiderationinwhat circumstancesa court shouldorder that childrenof separatedparentshavecontactwith otherpersons,includingtheirgrandparents.

We havenot hadtime to researchthis subject. However,we believetheexisting law isflexible enoughfor anyonewith agenuineinterestin achild’s welfareto seekordersregardinghis orherliving arrangements.

31

ToR (b) Fairnessof the Child Support FormulaWhetherthe existing child supportformula works fairly for bothparentsin

relationto their careof, andcontactwith, their children.

Child Support

Theestablishmentof earlierInquiriesinto child support,attemptsto amendtheChildSupportActandthefactthat fairnessof thechild supportformulais oneof theToRleadsto theconclusionthat child supportpayershavebeenurging changefor afew years. Istherereallyagroupofpayerswho arepushedtowardspovertybecauseof thechildsupportpaymentstheymake?

Beingtheresidentmotherofchildrenis still themostlikely predictorofpovertyinAustralia.Researchover thepasttwo decadeshasconsistentlyshownthat womenaremorelikely to experiencefinancialhardshipfollowing maritaldissolution.36In a 1993study,husbandssurveyedthreeyearsfollowing theirmaritalbreakdownhadreturnedtoincomelevelsequivalentto pre-separationwhile wives’ incomelevelshaddroppedby26%.~~ More recentstudieshaverevealedastatisticallysignificantrelationshipbetweengenderandfinancialliving standardsafterdivorce.38 Whetheraloneorwith childrenwomen’sfinancialcircumstancesarecomparativelysignificantlyworsethanthemaleequivalents.39

It mustalsobe recordedthat manypayersdo not honourtheir child supportobligations.In 2000, a surveyconductedof Child SupportAgency(GSA) clientsrevealedthat only28% of payeesreportedalways receivingpaymentson time, while 40% reportedthatpaymentwasneverreceived.40Of course,someof the defaultersare alsowomen.TheChild SupportAgency failed to collect nearly$770 million in 2000-2091and the debtswrittenoff by theChild SupportAgencyduringthis periodroseby 27%to $74million.4’

In its on-goingwork on financial living standardsafterdivorce,theAIFS notedthe“mounting concernin recentyearsabouttheextentto whichchild supportmight bedriving payersinto poverty”.42 Theresearchersinvestigatedthis issue.

Of theyoungermenin theiranalysiswhowerewageearners(10%of whomhadchildrenfrom a newunion in thehousehold)theproportionwith incomesbelow theHendersonpovertyline increasedfrom 3%,beforechild supportwasdeducted,to 7%afterthepaymentsweremade. Theresearchersconcludedthat:

Child supportpaymentsdid not appearto be creatingfinancialhardshipfor themajorityofthesewage-earningmen.

However,it canbe arguedthat for asmall group— the4% who dippedbelowtheHendersonpovertyline aftermakingtheirchild supportpayments,theremaybe genuinecausefor concern.

32

It

But whencomparedto thewomen,themenare clearlybetteroff. Without child support,24%ofthewage-earningwomen(andchildren)wouldhavebeenbelowtheHendersonpovertyline. With child supporttheproportionwasreducedto 10%. Thuschild supportassisted14%of thewomenandchildrento avoid living belowtheHendersonpovertyline, largelywithout placingthepayersin poverty.43

WLS is concernedto notethewaythat this Inquiry haslinked child supportandcontact.We acknowledgethat it costsmoneyto havethechildrenfor contact— but this wastakeninto accountwhendevelopingthechild supportformula. It is alsounderstandablethatparentswho supporttheirchildrenwantto seethem,thereis apermeatingsenseoftradingtime with childrenasa form ofincomeretention.

Alreadycarefulcalculationsaremadein courtcorridors,workingout thepreciseimpactofproposedcontactarrangementson child supportpayments.Submissionsdressedup inlanguageabout‘most appropriatecontact’aretingedwith child supportimplications.Theincreasingpatternofaweek-nightstayoverandcollectionandreturnofthechildrenthroughtheschool(Thursdayto Mondaysay)maybepartlytheresultofdevisingcontactarrangementswhichreachthemagicfigureof 30%of nights,therebyreducingchildsupport. WLS acknowledgesthatmanychildrenenjoy this timewith theirfatherandbenefit from it, but it is naiveto suggestthat thereareno financialinterestsatplay.

Wehavereferredto theattemptsto reducethesenseof childrenaspropertyby thenewterminologyintroducedin 1996,however,thefiscal valueofchildrenis deeplyentrenchedin this debate.

If moreparentsengagedin sharedparentingafterseparation,this will alsoincreasethelikely shareofpropertyreceivedby fathers. Childrenasproperty:childrenasincome.Giventhegenerallybetterfinancial circumstancesof men,womenwill be quitebadlyaffectedby theseshifts. It is likely thatmorewomenandchildrenwill live in poverty.

Key Point 16

In respectof answeringtheToR,WSL is awareofthe researchthe AIFS is conductinginto the links betweencontactand child support and we believeit is important toawait thosefindings. Any changesto the child support formula needcareful,informed analysis. It is a highly charged issuein thecommunity.

33

PART III - IDEAS FROM AN EXISTING MODEL

3.1 Introduction

In this Partwehaveprovidedadiscussionofrelevantsectionsof Chapter26 of theRevisedCodeof WashingtonState44(RCW)andadiscussionofthebenefitsanddisadvantageswithin this model. We discoveredthis statuteanda very thoughtful reporton its effectiveness45while undertakingourresearchfor this Inquiry.

A copyofthe relevantprovisionsoftheRCWis providedatannexure‘A’.

WLS’s positionis that this particularInquiry shouldnotbe thecatalystfor anychangetotheFamily Law Act. Wedo notbelievethat theFLA is ideal, but theareaswebelieverequirereformrelateto improving thesystem’sresponseto violenceandabuse.Thesehavebeencanvassed.

However,we acknowledgethat thereappearsto be a levelof discontentin thecommunity. If theCommitteeis temptedto respondto thosecalls,weconsiderthat theRCWprovidesaninterestingmodel for consideration.It seemsto containanumberofattributeswhich addressarangeofconcernswhichhavebeenraisedin family law systemdebatesin the lastfew yearsby bothmenandwomen. Therearealsoa numberoffeatureswhich areprobablyinconsistentwith theAustralianapproachto family law andwhichwewould notwant to seecontemplatedin Australia.

Ofgreatinterestto theproponentsofsharedparentingis that theRCW anticipatesthesekinds ofordersasanactive optionandovertlyincludesthemin thestatutoryregime.However,it doesnotelevatethemto thepresumedstartingpoint. Ratherit positionstheconcepttowardstheendof astagedprocesswhich is only reachedafterall mattersin thebestinterestsofthechildhavebeenconsidered.

In ouropinion it is compatiblewith the“four fundamentalprinciples”whichguidedthethinking ofthePathwaysAdvisoryGroup:

• overridingimport~ancegivento thebestinterestsofthechild

• priority for useofnon-judicialprocessesto resolveissuesoffamily conflict andtransition

• needto ensuresafetyfrom familyviolence

• responsibilityofparentsto providefinancialsupportfor theirchildren46

3.1.1 IMPORTANCE OF THE LEGISLATIVE ‘PACKAGE’

34

Whenconsideringlegislativereform,governmentsmustalwaysbecareful to examinethewholepackageof anymodel from a differentjurisdictionwhich is underconsideration.Partof theappealof theRCW is in thewhole packageit encompasses.Althoughitactivelyencouragessharedparenting,it startsby emphasizingprotectionfrom abuse.

It would be a seriousmistakeanddetrimentalto childrenif recommendationsweremadewhich embracedthesharedparentingpartof theRCWwhile ignoringtheprotectiveaspects.This statutestrikesabalancebetweenprotectionof family membersfrom abusewhile encouragingon-goinginvolvementfromboth parentswhereappropriate.

Key Point 17

It would be very dangerousfor womenand children if legislation were introducedwhich further promoted sharedcare after separation, unless this was donetogetherwith provisionswhich setout a more detailedand effectiveprocessfor dealingwithallegationsofabuse.

3.1.2OVERVIEW OF WASHINGTON LEGISLATION

TheRCWprovidesastagedprocessto follow whendevelopingan agreementorpursingajudicial decisionaboutarrangementsfor childrenafterseparation:

1. thebestinterestsof thechild aretheoverarchingpolicy framework

2. decisionsshouldbemadeso thateachparentis encouragedto haveapositiveon-

going relationshipwith theirchildren3. wherecontra-indicationsto safetyexist,restrictionsareplacedon thekinds of

orderswhich canbemade

4. thelegislationspecificallyrefersto thepossibilityofmaking orderswhich involvesharedcareor frequentexchanges

5. however,agreementsorordersfor sharedcarecanoniy bemadewhencertainpositive featuresexistin thecircumstancesof thefamily andcannotbe madeiftherearecertaincontra-indicators

Wewill nowexaminetheprovisionsin detail.

3.2 Policy Statement

RCW26.09.002providesapolicy frameworkfor of theall sectionsaboutfamilyrelationships.

35

Firstly it statesclearly thatbestinterestsof thechild is the test:

In anyproceedingbetweenparentsunderthis chapter,thebestinterestsof thechild shall be thestandardby which thecourtdeterminesandallocatestheparties’parentalresponsibilities.

Australiais verycomfortablewith thebest intereststestandwe believeits continueduseis widely supported.Americanexperton custodylaw, JoanKelly saysofthetest:

Themostcompellingreasonfor relyingupona determinationofthechild’s bestinterestsis that decision-makingis centeredon children’sneeds,ratherthanadultconsiderationsor societalstereotypesandlegal traditions.

Thesecondadvantageof thebestintereststandardis thatit is responsiveto changingsocialor legaltrendsoutsideof custodylaw ... Certainly,the“best interest”standardenabledfatherswhohadengagedfully in significantcaretakingroleswithin thefamily to havean expandedrole in thechild’s life afterdivorce.47

This latterconceptis clearlyvital in thecurrentInquiry. It seemsto suggestthat it is notnecessaryto havearebuttablepresumptionin thelaw. Thebestinterestsof childrentestmaybeall that is neededfor fathersto remainmeaningfullyinvolvedwith theirchildrenafterseparation,particularlyto a level similar to theextentoftheirinvolvementprior toseparation.

Notwithstandingthefact that theToR appearto assumethat thebestintereststestwouldremainparamount,weareconcernedthat this would not reallybethestrict legalinterpretationof the law if arebuttablepresumptionwerelegislated.

Thepolicy statementalsoemphasizesthe“fundamentalimportanceof theparent-childrelationshipto thewelfareofthechild” andstatesthat therelationshipshouldbe fostered“unlessinconsistentwith thechild’s bestinterests”. Thewordingusedis actuallyverysimilar to our ‘principles’ section60B(2)of theFamily Law. This indicatesthat theRCWandAustralianlaw sharesomecommonunderlyingphilosophies.

3.3 Criteria For Making Parenting Decisions

RCW26.09.187setsout thecriteriafor establishingwhattheRCW calls“parentingplans”. (Parentingplansseemto beusedin Washingtonwhetherthepartiesdeveloptheplanthemselvesby agreement,orwhetherit is judicially imposed.)

PDR Processes

1. It is interestingto notethat thesectionstartsby clearlyexcludingcaseswith ahistoryof violenceandabusefrom the“disputeresolutionprocesses”(see26.09.187(1)).This is theequivalentofour“PDR” processesandno suchovertexclusionsexist in ourlaw. WLS commendsthis provisionoftheRCW.

36

Both parents encoura2edto be meaningfully involved

2. Subsection26.09.187(3)(a)againincludesa conceptsimilarto theprinciplecontainedin oursection60B(2)of theFLA, requiringthecourtto makeorders“which encourageeachparentto maintaina loving, stableandnurturingrelationshipwith thechild”.

Somebehaviour createsrestrictions

3. However,thesubsectionalsodrawsin thenotionofrestrictingresidential

arrangementsfor parentswhohaveengagedin certainkinds ofbehaviour:Thechild’s residentialscheduleshallbe consistentwith RCW 26.09.191.Wherethe limitations ofRCW 26.09.191are not dispositive ofthechild’s residential schedule,thecourtshallconsiderthefollowingfactors:

In otherwords,wherecertainfeaturesoutlinedin 26.09.191existin aparticularcase,therearespecific approachesto be takenin decision-making.Thosefeaturesareextensive,but tendto relateto abuseandviolence.

4. Theideathat allegationsof violenceandabuseshouldbe determinedearlyandthereafterinfluencedecision-makingis emergingasan importantapproachto theprotectionofchildren. We havealreadydescribedits presencein the lawsand

48practicesof anumberofjurisdictions.

Theprecisebehaviourwhich createsrestrictionsis containedin RCW 26.09.191andwill be discusseda little morelater.

General factors listed for bestinterests ofthe child

5. Whereno restrictivemattersapply, thesectionthensetsout a list of factorsfor thecourtto considerin thebestinterestsofthechild which areverysimilarto section68F(2)factorsoftheFLA. SeeRCW 26.09.187(3)(a)(i)-(vii).

Role of Primary Carer

6. Interestingly,thefirst factorincludesa conceptnot reallypresentin our FLA; thatis that in assessingtherelationshipofthechild with eachparent,thecourt isrequiredto takeinto account“whethera parenthastakengreaterresponsibilityforperformingparentingfunctionsrelatingto thedaily needsof thechild”.

Parentingfunctionsaredefinedin detailatRCW26.09.004(seeannexureA).Theyareverybroad,rangingfrom practicalcare,throughto meetingdevelopmentalneedsandprovidingemotionalandfinancialsupport.

37

7. Thesectionprovidesthat this factor“be giventhegreatestweight”. This shouldgive greaterimportanceto the roleplayedby eitherparentasprimarycarer. Webelievethat this role is undervaluedin our family law systematpresentandthat itis this undervaluingwhich allows abusiveparentsto haveinappropriateprospectsofsuccessofresidencein somecases.

WLS workswith motherswho arefearfulofsendingtheir childrenon contactvisits to their violentpartners.Theyweretheprimarycarerandprotectorofthechild duringtherelationship.Fathersapplyfor, andaresometimesgrantedresidenceof childrenin these‘high-conflict’ cases.An emphasison theimportanceon theroleofprimarycarermaysubtlychangetheemphasison thatpartof theevidencein somecases.

It is an importantpartof thepackageandbalanceof this legislation.

Anticipatespossibility ofsharedparentini~

8. Importantlysubsection26.09.187(3)(b)anticipatesthe ideathatthearrangementscouldincludesomethinglike a sharedparentingarrangementwith “brief andsubstantiallyequalintervalsof time”. This legislativelypromotestheconceptofsharedparenting,however,it doesnot entrenchnorpromotea specifically‘equaltime’ model.

It couldbe that includingtheconceptofsharedparentingin legislationin thismannerfacilitatesits considerationby appropriatefamilies. It maybecomemorevisible in communityeducationmaterialsandbediscussedmorefrequentlybycounsellorsandotherkeyplayers. It maygenerallyencouragemoreactiveandinnovativeeducationprograms.

9. Thestudyinto theRCW suggestedthatparentsneededmoreinformationso itwouldbe possibleto “encouragemorecreativityandindividualizingofparentingplans”.49 ThePathwaysReportalsofoundthatparentswantedmoreinformationaboutwhatis actuallyin thebestinterestoftheirchildren.50

Manyparentswould like mediatorsandotherprofessionalsto play amoreactiverole in workingout options. OnememberoftheAIFS sharedparentsfocusgroupsaid:

... whenI put it on themediator— not so muchto givemetheanswersbutto give meandmy ex ideason thevariablesthat you needto considerinthis model— theKweren’t forthcoming. It wasan answerlike: ‘You haveto work it out.’

38

However,on a cautionarynote,it is importantto realizethat thesocialreality maynot follow any legislatedideal.52 “There is no evidenceto suggestthat sharedcaregivinghasbecomealived reality for thechildrenofseparatedparentswhohaveengagedwith the ‘family law system’sincethe [FamilyLaw Act changedtopromotesharedparenting].”

Excludessomeparents from shared parentin2 arranaements

10. Theprovisionalsoincludesa list of strict qualificationsfor sharedparenting:

i. noneoftherestrictionsrelevantto residentialorderscanbepresent(ie. theRCW26.09.191factors);

ii. (A) thereis agreement;OR

(B) thepartieshaveasatisfactoryhistoryof cooperationandsharedperformanceofparentingfunctions[andfurtherpracticalmatters]; and

ii’. theprovisionsarein thebestinterestsofthechild.

Thesequalificationsarevital andestablishlegislativelytheessentialcriteriawhichneedto bepresentif sharedparentingafterseparationis to becontemplatedby aparticularfamily. Theydo not appearto provideabusiveparentswith afurtherlitigious weapon. Rather,the law providesan invitation to committedparentsto be creativein theirarrangementsfor thechildrenandto find waysbywhich bothparentscancontinueto havemeaningfulrelationshipswith theirchildrenafterseparation.

3.4Restrictionson DecidingParenting Arrangements

As wehavediscussed,WLS believesthat thefamily law systemwouldbe improvedintermsof its responseto domesticviolenceandchild abuseif thelaw encouragedearlydeterminationsof theseallegations.In our view, thecurrentlaw allows theFamily Courtandprofessionalsin thefamily law systemto discounttheimportanceof violence—

particularlyspousalviolence53. Wherethemotherhasbeentheprimarycarer,violenceagainstthewomanis not separablefromviolenceagainstthechildren. Thereforewesupporttheideaof clearrestrictionsbeingincludedin thelaw.

However,webelievethat theactual list ofexclusoryfactorscontainedin RCW26.09.191is not in line with Australianpracticemoregenerally. Theconceptof “wilful Nabandonment”is not onereally referredto in Australianfamily law. This exclusioncoulddisadvantageawomanwho leavesthechildrenwith anabusivefather,believingitto be theonlywayto getawaysafely. It couldalsodisadvantageafatherwhodisengagesfrom his childrenfor aperiodoftime andthenwishesto re-establishhimselfwith hisfamily. We wouldnot recommendtheinclusionof thisconceptin anyAustralianmodel.

39

We canalsoenvisagecaseswherebothparentswould beexcludedby theseprovisions—

thus perhapsplacingchildrenprecipitouslyin thechild protectionsystem.

Further,thedefinitionof domesticviolencecontainedin 26.50.010(which is linked intosection26.09.191)is verynarrowandappearsto encompassmainlyphysicalabuse.Conceptssuchassocial,emotionalandfinancialabusehavenot beenincorporated.

Finally section26.09.191(3)containsa descriptionof conductwhich“mayhaveanadverseeffecton thechild’s bestinterests”andallows theexistenceofthis conducttolimit theprovisionsofaparentingplan. It seemsto usthat thismovestowardsanapproachwhich is far moreprescriptivethanthemorediscretionaryregimewith whichAustraliancourtsarecomfortable.

Greatcautionis requiredbeforeadoptinglist afterlist ofprescriptiveprovisions.

3.5 Conclusionsto Model Discussion

It is theopinionofWLS thatthecurrentFamilyLawActworks adequatelyin termsofencouragingparentsto shareparenting.We believethat therealobstaclesto this occurlongbeforeseparationandarerelatedto thestereotypicalgenderedrolesstill playedbymothersandfathersin contemporaryAustralianhomes. Although a slow changeisoccurring,therewill alsoneedto be changesto workplacepractices,increasedavailabilityof child careplacesanda raftof othersocialpolicy initiativesbeforesharedparentingcanbecomea commonpattern.

We advocateno changeto thelaw atpresent,but ratherenhancedcommunityeducationfor fathersandparentsgenerally.Suchkinds of educationprobablyneedto startwithyoung children. Considerationofthesocialpolicy initiatives neededto improvetheprospectsofsharedparentingis also required.

If changeis to beconsideredby governmentwehopethat wehaveprovidedaninterestingandinformativemodelwhichmayaddressarangeof concerns.We believethatmanyof thegroupswhichwill be representedatthis Inquiry would havesomeoftheirissuesansweredby legislativereformwhich drawsfrom thismodel.

Key Point18

If theCommitteewishesto suggestchange,we considerthat the following ideasareessential:

1. There must be extensivecommunity consultation about the detail of anymodelwhich is suggested.

2. The Washington Statemodelshould be further researched.

40

3. The total packageand balanceof any legislativemodels examinedmustbe understood.

41

Annexure ‘A’

MAJOR DECISION-MAKING PROVISIONS ABOUT RESIDENCEREVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON

Policy Statement

RCW 26.09.002PolicyParentshavetheresponsibilityto makedecisionsandperformotherparentalfunctionsnecessaryfor thecareandgrowthof theirminorchildren.In anyproceedingbetweenparentsunderthis chapter,thebestinterestsofthechild shall bethestandardby whichthecourtdeterminesandallocatestheparties’parentalresponsibilities.Thestaterecognizesthefundamentalimportanceoftheparent-childrelationshipto thewelfareofthechild, andthat therelationshipbetweenthechild andeachparentshouldbe fostereduniessinconsistentwith thechild’s bestinterests.Thebestinterestsofthechild areservedby aparentingarrangementthatbestmaintainsachild’s emotionalgrowth,healthandstability, andphysicalcare.Further,thebestinterestof thechild is ordinarily servedwhentheexistingpatternof interactionbetweenaparentandchild is alteredonly to theextentnecessitatedbythechangedrelationshipof theparentsorasrequiredto protectthechild fromphysical,mental,or emotionalharm.

Criteria for establishin2permanent parentina plan

.

RCW 26.09.187Criteria for establishingpermanentparenting plan.(1)DISPUTERESOLUTIONPROCESS.Thecourtshallnotorderadisputeresolutionprocess,exceptcourtaction,whenit finds that anylimiting factorunderRCW26.09.191applies,orwhenit finds that eitherparentis unableto afford thecostoftheproposeddisputeresolutionprocess.If adisputeresolutionprocessis notprecludedor limited, thenin designatingsuchaprocessthecourtshall considerall relevantfactors,including:

(a)Differencesbetweentheparentsthatwould substantiallyinhibit their effectiveparticipationin anydesignatedprocess;

(b) Theparents’wishesoragreementsand,if theparentshaveenteredinto agreements,whethertheagreementsweremadeknowinglyandvoluntarily; and

(c) Differencesin theparents’financialcircumstancesthat mayaffect their ability toparticipatefully in agivendisputeresolutionprocess.

42

(2) ALLOCATION OF DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY.

(a) AGREEMENTSBETWEENTHE PARTIES.Thecourtshall approveagreementsofthepartiesallocatingdecision-makingauthority,orspecifyingrulesin theareaslistedin RCW26.09.184(4)(a),whenit finds that:

(i) Theagreementis consistentwith anylimitations on aparent’sdecision-makingauthoritymandatedby RCW26.09.191;and

(ii) Theagreementis knowing andvoluntary.

(b) SOLEDECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY. Thecourtshall ordersole decision-makingto oneparentwhenit finds that:

(i) A limitation on theotherparent’sdecision-makingauthorityis mandatedby RCW26.09.191;

(ii) Bothparentsareopposedto mutualdecisionmaking;

(iii) Oneparentis opposedto mutualdecisionmaking,andsuchoppositionisreasonablebasedon thecriteriain (c) of this subsection;

(c) MUTUAL DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY. Exceptasprovidedin (a) and(b)of this subsection,thecourtshallconsiderthefollowing criteriain allocatingdecision-makingauthority:

(i) Theexistenceof a limitationunderRCW 26.09.191;

(ii) Thehistoryofparticipationofeachparentin decisionmakingin eachof theareasin RCW 26.09.184(4)(a);

(iii) Whethertheparentshaveademonstratedability anddesireto cooperatewith oneanotherin decisionmakingin eachoftheareasin RCW26.09.184(4)(a);and

(iv) Theparents’geographicproximity to oneanother,to theextentthat it affectstheir

ability to maketimelymutualdecisions.

(3) RESIDENTIAL PROVISIONS.

(a)The courtshallmakeresidentialprovisionsfor eachchild whichencourageeachparentto maintaina loving, stable,andnurturingrelationshipwith thechild, consistentwith thechild’s developmentallevel andthefamily’s socialandeconomiccircumstances.Thechild’s residentialscheduleshallbe consistentwith RCW 26.09.191.Wherethelimitations ofRCW 26.09.191arenot dispositiveofthechild’s residentialschedule,thecourtshall considerthefollowing factors:

43

(i) Therelativestrength,nature,andstabilityofthechild’s relationshipwith eachparent,includingwhethera parenthastakengreaterresponsibilityfor performingparentingfunctions[seedefinitionbelow] relatingto thedailyneedsof thechild;

(ii) Theagreementsoftheparties,providedtheywereenteredinto knowinglyandvoluntarily;

(iii) Eachparent’spastandpotentialfor futureperformanceofparentingfunctions;

(iv) Theemotionalneedsanddevelopmentallevel of thechild;

(v) Thechild’s relationshipwith siblingsandwith othersignificantadults,aswell asthechild’s involvementwith his orherphysicalsurroundings,school,orothersignificantactivities;

(vi) Thewishesoftheparentsandthewishesofachild whois sufficientlymaturetoexpressreasonedandindependentpreferencesasto his orherresidentialschedule;and

(vii) Eachparent’semploymentschedule,andshallmakeaccommodationsconsistentwith thoseschedules.

Factor(i) shallbegiven thegreatestweight.

(b) Thecourtmayorderthat a child frequentlyalternatehis orherresidencebetweenthehouseholdsoftheparentsforbrief andsubstantiallyequalintervalsoftime oniy if thecourtfinds thefollowing:

(i) No limitation existsunderRCW 26.09.191;

(ii)(A) Thepartieshaveagreedto suchprovisionsandtheagreementwasknowingly

andvoluntarilyenteredinto; or

(B) Thepartieshaveasatisfactoryhistoryof cooperationandsharedperformanceofparentingfunctions;thepartiesareavailableto eachother,especiallyin geographicproximity, to theextentnecessaryto ensuretheirability to shareperformanceoftheparentingfunctions;and

(iii) Theprovisionsarein thebestinterestsofthechild.

44

Restrictive provisions in parenting plans

.

‘I

RWC 26.09.191Restrictions in temporary or permanentparenting plans.

(2)(a) Theparent’sresidentialtime with thechild shall be limited if it is foundthat theparenthasengagedin any of thefollowing conduct:(i) Willful abandonmentthatcontinuesfor an extendedperiodof time orsubstantialrefusalto performparentingfunctions; (ii) physical,sexual,orapatternofemotionalabuseof achild; (iii) a historyofactsof domesticviolenceasdefinedin RCW 26.50.010(1)[seedefinition below] oranassaultorsexualassaultwhich causesgrievousbodilyharmor thefearof suchharm;or(iv) theparenthasbeenconvictedasanadult of asexoffenseunder:

[Thesectionthensetsouta rangeofsectionsandgoeson to developa complexregimeofrebuttablepresumptionsagainstparentswhohavebeenconvictedofsexualoffencesorwho residewithpeopleconvictedofsexualoffences...]

(3) A parent’sinvolvementorconductmayhavean adverseeffecton thechild’s bestinterests,andthecourtmayprecludeor limit any provisionsoftheparentingplan,if anyof thefollowing factorsexist:

(a)A parent’sneglectorsubstantialnonperformanceofparentingfunctions;

(b)A long-termemotionalorphysicalimpairmentwhichinterfereswith theparent’s

performanceofparentingfunctionsasdefinedin RCW26.09.004[seedefinitionbelow];

(c) A long-termimpairmentresultingfrom drug,alcohol,orothersubstanceabusethat

interfereswith theperformanceofparentingfunctions;

(d) Theabsenceorsubstantialimpairmentof emotionaltiesbetweentheparentand

thechild;

(e)Theabusiveuseof conflict by theparentwhichcreatesthedangerof serious

damageto thechild’s psychologicaldevelopment;

(f) A parenthaswithh~ld from theotherparentaccessto thechild for aprotractedperiodwithout goodcanse;or

(g) Suchotherfactorsor conductasthecourtexpresslyfinds adverseto thebestinterestsofthechild.

45

Definition of domesticviolence

RCW 26.50.010Definitions.As usedin this chapter,thefollowing termsshall havethemeaningsgiven them:

(1) “Domesticviolence”means:(a) Physicalharm,bodily injury, assault,or theinfliction offearofimminentphysicalharm,bodily injury orassault,betweenfamily orhouseholdmembers;(b) sexualassaultofonefamily orhouseholdmemberby another;or(c) stalkingas definedin RCW9A.46.110 ofone familyorhouseholdmemberby anotherfamily orhouseholdmember.

Definition of Darentln2 functions

RCW 26.09.004Definitions.Thedefmitionsin this sectionapplythroughoutthis chapter.

(3) “Parentingfunctions”meansthoseaspectsoftheparent-childrelationshipin whichtheparentmakesdecisionsandperformsfunctionsnecessaryfor thecareandgrowthofthechild. Parentingfunctionsinclude:

(a)Maintaininga loving,stable,consistent,andnurturingrelationshipwith thechild;

(b) Attendingto thedaily needsofthechild, suchasfeeding,clothing,physicalcareandgrooming,supervision,healthcare,anddaycare,andengagingin otheractivitieswhich areappropriateto thedevelopmentallevel ofthechild andthat arewithin thesocialandeconomiccircumstancesof theparticularfamily;

(c) Attendingto adequateeducationfor thechild, including remedialor othereducationessentialto thebestinterestsofthechild;

(d)Assistingthechild in developingandmaintainingappropriateinterpersonalrelationships;

(e)Exercisingappropriatejudgmentregardingthechild’s welfare,consistentwith thechild’s developmentallevel andthe family’s socialandeconomiccircumstances;and

(f) Providingforthe financialsupportofthechild.

46

Annexure ‘B’EXTRACT FROM: NEWZEALAND GUARDIANSHIPA CT1968

16B.Allegations of violencemadein custodyor accessproceedings

(1) This sectionappliesto anyproceedingsrelatingto an applicationmadeunderthisActfor an orderrelatingto thecustodyof, oraccessto, achild, (including,withoutlimitation,an applicationfor thevariationordischargeof anyorderwith respectto thecustodyof,oraccessto, a child, or for thevariationor dischargeofanyconditionof anysuchorder),whetherornot theproceedingsalsorelateto any othermatter(whetherarisingunderthisAct oranyotherenactment).

(2) Where,in anyproceedingsto whichthis sectionapplies,it is allegedthat apartytotheproceedingshasusedviolenceagainstthechild orachild ofthefamily oragainsttheotherpartyto theproceedings,theCourt shall,assoonaspracticable,determine,on thebasisof theevidencepresentedto it by oron behalfofthepartiesto theproceedings,whethertheallegationofviolenceis proved.

(3) Nothing in subsection(2) ofthis sectionrequirestheCourtto makeany inquiriesofits own motionin orderto makea determinationon theallegation.

(4) Where,in anyproceedingsto whichthis sectionapplies,theCourt is satisfiedthat apartyto theproceedings(in this sectionreferredto astheviolentparty) hasusedviolenceagainstthechild orachild ofthe family or againsttheotherpartyto theproceedings,theCourt shallnot

(a) Make anyordergiving theviolentpartycustodyofthechild to whomtheproceedingsrelate;or

(b) Make anyorderallowing theviolentpartyaccess(otherthansupervisedaccess)to that child,

unlesstheCourtis satisfiedthat thechild will be safewhile theviolentpartyhascustodyof or, asthecasemaybe,~accessto thechild.

(5) In considering,for thepurposesofsubsection(4) ofthis section,whetherornot achild will be safewhile aviolentpartyhascustodyof,oraccess(otherthansupervisedaccess)to, thechild, theCourt shall,so far asis practicable,haveregardto thefollowingmatters:

(a) Thenatureandseriousnessoftheviolenceused:

(b) How recentlytheviolenceoccurred

(c) Thefrequencyof theviolence:

47

(d) Thelikelihood of furtherviolenceoccurring:

(e) Thephysicaloremotionalharmcausedto thechild by theviolence:

(f) Whethertheotherpartyto theproceedings

i. Considersthat thechild will be safewhile theviolentpartyhascustodyof,oraccessto, thechild; and

ii. Consentsto theviolentpartyhavingcustodyof, oraccess(otherthansupervisedaccess)to, thechild:

(g) Thewishesofthechild, if thechild is ableto expressthemandhavingregardto

theageandmaturityofthechild:

(h) Any stepstakenby theviolentpartyto preventfurtherviolenceoccurring:

(i) SuchothermattersastheCourt considersrelevant.

(6)Notwithstandingsubsection(2) ofthis section,where, in anyproceedingsto whichthis sectionapplies,

(a) TheCourt is unableto determine,onthebasisoftheevidencepresentedto it byor on behalfofthepartiesto theproceedings,whetheror not theallegationofviolenceis proved;but

(b) TheCourtis satisfiedthat thereis a realrisk to thesafetyof thechild,

theCourt maymakesuchorderunderthis Act asit thinks fit in orderto protectthesafetyofthechild.

(7)Theprovisionsof this sectionshall applynotwithstandingsection23 (2)of this Act.

48

Family Law PathwaysAdvisory Group(2001)OutoftheMaze:Pathwaysto theFuturefor Families

ExperiencingSeparation,Commonwealthof Australia,p 6

2 AustralianBureauof Statistics,Family CharacteristicsSurvey1997,Cat No4442.0,AGPS, Canberra;

Seealso SmythB andParkinsonP; ‘whenthedifferenceis nightandday: Insightsfrom HILDA intopatternsof parent-childcontactafterseparation’,Paperpresentedat theHILDA Conference,TheUniversityofMelbourne,March,2003, p 7 availableathttp://www.aifs.org.au/institute/pubs/papers/smyth3.pdf

seeParkinsonP & SmythB abovenote 23 at p 9

“HawthorneB, ‘NonresidentFathers:Missing in Action?A preliminaryanalysisof a studyof Australiannonresidentfathers’. Paperpresentedatthe8~ AustralianInstituteof Family StudiesConference,March,2003,p 5, availableat http://www.aifs.org.aulinstitute/afrc8/hawthorne.pdf

~Smyth B andParkinsonP, ‘When thedifferenceis nightandday: Insightsfrom HILDA into patternsofparent-childcontactafterseparation’,PaperpresentedattheHILDA Conference,TheUniversityofMelbourne,March, 2003,p 11, availableat http://www.aifs.org.au1institute/pubs/papers/smyth3.pdf

6 Thesefigures combinethe ‘a little toomuch’ and’waytoomuch’ groupsandthe ‘nowherenearenough’

and‘not quite enough’groups.

~SeeBrown T, SheehanR, FredericoM andHewitt L (2001),ResolvingFamily Violenceto Children,MonashUniversity, (MagellanEvaluation). TheMagellanprojectis asystemof casemanagementpilotedin theMelbourneRegistryoftheFamily Courtfor casesinvolving allegationsof sexualabuse.It hasprovento be aneffectivesystemwhich is soontobeimplementedin otherregistries.

~JohnsonJ (1994), ‘High-ConflictDivorce’ in TheFutureofChildren: ChildrenandDivorce, Vol 4, No1, Spring,p 172. Dr Johnsonis thedirectorof researchattheCenterfor theFamily inTransitioninCalifomia.

~Craig L, ‘Do AustraliansShareParenting?Time-diaryevidenceon fathers’andmothers’ timewithchildren’,Paperpresentedat the 8~” AustralianInstituteofFamily StudiesConference,March, 2003,availableathttp://www.aifs.org.au/institute/afrc8/craig.pdf

10 CraigL, ‘Do AustraliansShareParenting?Time-diaryevidenceon fathers’andmothers’ timewith

children’,Paperpresentedatthe8~ AustralianInstituteof Family StudiesConference,March,2003,availableathttp://www.aifs.org.au/institute/afrc8/craig.pdf

HawthorneB, ‘NonresidentFathers:Missing in Action?A preliminaryanalysisofa studyof Australian

nonresidentfathers’. Paperpresentedatthe8~ AustralianInstituteof Family StudiesConference,March,

2003,p 4, availableathttp://wxvw.aifs.org.au1institute/afrc8/hawthorne.pdf

12 ibdi.,p6

13 ibid.,p6

14 RendellK, RathusZ andLynch A (2000) UnacceptableRisk:AReporton child contactarrangements

wherethereis violencein thefamily,Women’sLegal Service,Brisbane,p 53

15 Kaye, M., Stubbs,J andTolmie,J (2003)NegotiatingChild ResidenceandContactArrangementsAgainsta BackgroundofDomesticViolence,Griffith University,p 139

49

16 In a randomsampleof 229 unreportedfinal decisionsof theFamily Courtin 1998/99, 14%involved no

contact. RhoadesH, GraycarRandHarrisonM (2000)TheFamilyLawReformAct 1995. TheFirst Three

Years,Universityof SydneyandFamily CourtofAustralia,p48-49

17 RendellK, RathusZ andLynch A (2000)UnacceptableRisk:A Reporton child contactarrangements

wherethereis violencein thefamily,Women’sLegal Service,Brisbane,p 119

18 HunterR, GenoveseA, Chranowski,A andMorris C (2002)Thechangingfaceoflitigation:

u~irepresentedlitigants in theFamily CourtofAustralia,Law andJusticeFoundationof NSW,p 41

19 HunterR, GiddingsJandChrzanowskiA (2003)LegalAid andSelf-representationin theFamily Court

of Australia:A studyto examinetherelationshipbetweenthe limitedavailability of legal aid fundsforfamily law mattersandthephenomenonof self-representinglitigants in the Family Court,GriffithUniversity, p 22

20 RendellK, RathusZ andLynch A (2000) UnacceptableRisk:A Reporton child contactarrangements

wherethereis violencein thefamily,Women’sLegalService,Brisbane,p 101

21 Chetwin,A.,Knaggs,T. & TeWairereAhiahi Young,P.(1999)TheDomesticViolenceLegislationand

ChildAccessinNewZealand,Ministry ofJustice,Wellington,p 70.

22 TheModel Codeis availableon the internetat

http://www.ncjfcj.org/deptlfvd/publications/main.cfm?Action=PUBGET&Filename=new_modelcode.pdf

23 AdvisoryBoardonFamily Law: ChildrenAct Sub-Committee(2000),AReportto theLordChancellor

on theQuestionofParentalContactin CasesWhereThereisDomesticViolence,London. It canbefoundontheLord Chancellor’swebsiteat <www.lcd.gov.uk/family/abfl>

24 Personalcorrespondence,Lord Chancellor’sDepartment,October,200125 AdvisoryBoardonFamily Law: ChildrenAct Sub-Committee(2001-2002),SummaryReporton

Findingsfrom theLordChancellor’sDepartment’sSurveyMonitoringAwarenessofGuidelinesat

<www.lcd.gov.uk/family/abfl!abflguiderep.htm>

26 Smyth,B., Caruana,C andFerro,A (2003)Somewhens,howsand whysofsharedcare:Whatseparated

parentswhospendequaltimewith theirchildrensayaboutparenting,paperpresentedtheAustralian

SocialPolicyConference,SocialPolicy ResearchCentre,Universityof NSW,pp 16 & 18

27 RhoadesH, The ‘No ContactMother’:ReconstructionsofMotherhoodin theEra ofthe ‘New’ Father

(2002) 16 IJLP&F 71-94at84-85

28 Dewar,J.& Parker,S.(1999) ‘Parenting, PlanningandPartnership:the impactof the newPartVII oftheFamily Law Act 1975’ -Family Law ResearchUnit WorkingPaper. No3. p 24

29 Smyth,B., Caruana,C andFerro, A (2003)Somewhens,howsand whysofsharedcare:Whatseparated

parentswhospendequaltimewith theirchildrensayaboutparenting,paperpresentedtheAustralian

SocialPolicyConference,SocialPolicy ResearchCentre,UniversityofNSW, pp 10 & 22

30 Kelly, J, (2003)TheDeterminationofChild Custodyin the USA,WorldWide LegalInformation

Association,http://wwwlia.org/us-cus.htm

31 Smyth,B., Caruana,C andFerro,A (2003)Somewhens,howsand whysofsharedcare: Whatseparated

parentswhospendequaltimewith their childrensayaboutparenting,paperpresentedtheAustralianSocialPolicyConference,Social Policy ResearchCentre,Universityof NSW, p 19

50

32 ibid., p 20

WadeA and SmartC, As Fairas it canbe? ChildhoodafterDivorce,to bepublishedin A Jensen& LMcKee(eds)(2002),Childrenandthe ChangingFamily, London,LalmerRoutledge,p 4

~ Smart,C., (2001)Children’s Voices,paperpresentedatthe2=”AnniversaryConferenceof theFamilyCourtofAustralia.

~ Lye, D (1999)WashingtonStateParentingPlanStudy,WashingtonStateSupremeCourtGenderandJusticeCommissionandDomesticRelationsCommission,p I, availableathttp://www.courts.wa.gov/committee/pdfparentingplanstudy.pdf

36 SeeRWeston,‘Changesin HouseholdIncomeCircumstances’,in PMcDonald(ed),SettlingUp:

PropertyandIncomeDistributionon Divorce inAustralia,AustralianInstituteof Family Studies(1986)100;RWeston, ‘IncomeCircumstancesof ParentsandChildren:A LongitudinalView’, inK Funder,MHarrisonandRWeston(eds),SettlingDown:PathwaysofParentsAfter Divorce,AustralianInstituteofFamily Studies(1993) 135.

~“ SettlingDown: PathwaysofParentsAfterDivorce, above,note 11 atp 137.

38 Weston,R& SmythB, ‘FinancialLiving StandardsAfter Divorce’ (2000) 55 FamilyMatters 11.

~ Smyth,B andWeston,R (2000)Financialliving standardsafterdivorce.A recentsnapshot,AustralianInstituteof Family Studies,pp 8-11

40 Wolffs, T& Shallcross,L, ‘Low IncomeParentsPayingChild Support:EvaluationoftheIntroductionof

a$260 Minimum Child SupportAssessment’(2000)57FamilyMatters 26.

41 AttorneyGeneral’sDepartment,Child SupportSchemeFactsand Figures2000-2001,2002.

42 Smyth,B & Weston,R(2000)Financial livingstandardsafterdivorce:A recentsnapshot,AlES, p 13

“~ AlES (2000)pp 13-14

“Available athttp://www.leg.wa.gov/rcw/index.cfm?fuseaction=title&title=26

‘~ Lye, D (1999) WashingtonStateParentingPlanStudy,WashingtonStateSupremeCourtGenderandJusticeCommissionand DomesticRelationsCommissionavailableathttp://www.courts.wa.gov/committee/pdf/parentingplanstudy.pdf

46 Family Law PathwaysAdvisory Group(2001)OutoftheMaze:Pathwaysto theFuturefor Families

ExperiencingSeparation,Commonwealthof Australia, pp4-5

‘i” Kelly J, TheDeterminationofChild Custodyin the USA,WorldWide LegalInfomiationAssociation,

lastmodified February,2003,availableathttp://wwlia.or~us-cus.htm

48 UnitedKingdom’sGuidelinesfor GoodPracticeon ParentalContactwherethereisDomesticViolence;

theUSA’s Family Violence.ModelStateCodeproducedby theNationalCouncilof JuvenileandFamilyCourtJudges;andtheNew ZealandGuardianshipAct 1968.

“~ Lye, D (1999)WashingtonStateParentingPlanStudy,WashingtonStateSupremeCourtGenderandJusticeCommissionandDomesticRelationsCommission,p ii, availableathttp://www.courts.wa.gov/committee/pdf/parentingplanstudy.pdf

51

50 Family Law PathwaysAdvisory Group(2001)Out oftheMaze:Pathwaysto theFuturefor Families

ExperiencingSeparation,Commonwealthof Australia, p 12

~‘ Smyth,B., Caruana,CandFerro,A (2003)Somewhens,howsandwhysofsharedcare: Whatseparatedparentswho spendequaltimewith their childrensayaboutparenting,paperpresentedtheAustralianSocialPolicyConference,SocialPolicy ResearchCentre,UniversityofNSW,p 14

52 RhoadesH, GraycarRandHarrisonM (2000)TheFamilyLawReformAct 1995:TheFirst ThreeYears,

Universityof SydneyandFamilyCourtofAustralia, atp 59.

~ To acertainextentsomeof theproblemsarounddirectchild abuseareaboutproving that it hasoccurred.

52