Shared parenting for divorce couples 'harmful to children'

NEWS.com.au |
Fox Sports |
Newspapers |
CareerOne |
carsguide |
TrueLocal |
Real Estate |
MySpace AU

Shared parenting for divorce couples 'harmful to children'

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24624845-27197,00.html

Article from: The Courier-Mail

Matthew Fynes-Clinton

November 09, 2008 11:00pm

LANDMARK laws that promote equal parenting time for separated couples are emotionally damaging children, according to lawyers and psychologists.

Brisbane-based former Family Court judge Tim Carmody has branded the push towards shared parental responsibility and 50-50 parenting time "a failure".
Case study: Read Mia's sad story
He said the onus to apply equal shared parenting orders was part of the reason he resigned from the bench in July.

"It created a real crisis for me," Mr Carmody said. "I just couldn't keep doing it."

The orders appear to fly in the face of exceptions to the legislation, such as family violence or when equal time with parents is not "reasonably practicable".

Melbourne child psychologist Jennifer McIntosh said children in 50-50 care risked developing higher than average levels of sadness, anxiety, clinginess and other mental health problems.

She said equal-time parenting could be especially damaging for children under three.

"I recently had a case of a two-year-old in week-about care, whose parents couldn't even agree what daycare centre the child went to," Dr McIntosh said.

"They both work full-time. So the child goes not only between the two houses but two day-care centres. 

"The fragmentation of this little boy was significant."

Mr Carmody, SC, who has returned to the private bar after serving the Family Court for five years, said only 5 per cent of couples continued to trial after filing to the courts over child custody.

They amounted to the most hostile of marriage or de facto breakdowns.

Yet, under the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act, judicial orders for these couples must apply a presumption that "equal shared parental responsibility" is in the best interests of a child.

The changes - introduced by the Howard government in 2006 to assuage concerns about absent fathers - mean both parents are legally bound to jointly attempt to make "major long-term decisions" about their children's care, welfare and development.

Fifty-fifty parenting time is not automatic. But when equal shared parental responsibility is imposed, Mr Carmody says the court is required to "favourably" consider a further order that a child spend equal time with each of the parents.

The amendments were flawed because highly conflicted former partners never co-operated on decisions, Mr Carmody said.

He called for a "non-presumptive best interest-based solution".

 "In most cases, (that) would be in a single principal place of residence (with children) spending more time with mothers than fathers," Mr Carmody said.

"For most people (in the past), that worked. Even though dads didn't like it and grumbled about it, it worked even for them."

Family litigation is mostly a Commonwealth matter, determined in either theFederal Magistrate's Court or the Family Court of Australia.

Choose your news

Have Your Say

Latest Comments:

I am going to be crucified for this, but children need one home and one home only. Furthermore women should have more weight in the argument, after all they carried the child for 9 months, gave birth to the child, and more often than not nursed the child and was the primary carer for the child, all the while giving up their individuality and chance to earn money. Off course this only applies to good mothers who have the best interest of the child at heart. Just my 2 cents worth.

Posted by: zzz of 9:48am November 14, 2008

After 14 years, and now that the children are older, the ex now wants shared care of the younger one but not the older one. That's when emotional damage occurs, not just to the child in shared care but to his family of 15 years.

Posted by: dd of brisbane 9:00am November 14, 2008

The separated parents can always justify themselves for the sake of their children. In a few cases it may be true, but the majority of separations damage the children. It is a side issue of the me, me, me, generation. Parents should first be good friends, before deciding to marry and have children. The 50/50 is meant to be give and take. Continuous bickering does not help either the marriage or the parenting. Someone has to be prepared to be the hero and allow the other to have a win.

Posted by: Pensioner of Rochedale 4:05pm November 13, 2008

The easy way out then is to give fathers sole rights to the kids. Can you see it- never

Posted by: Ronaldo of Clontarf Beach 9:26am November 13, 2008

Regardless of what hapens the kids involved are always the losers, not the parents.

Posted by: Nightseer of Victor Harbor 1:56pm November 11, 2008

My ex and I have managed to balance the stability for our 2 boys for the last 8 years. Our kids were born out of love and have always known that we both love them,even though we aren't together anymore. I didn't want my kids to grow up bitter and twisted because of the separation. We have never had mediation or custody battles,just good old common sense and caring for the kids before ourselves.

Posted by: db of 8:44am November 11, 2008

Go and check dads on the air.com, the guys and girl on there have worked it out to a T of what this whole corrupt mess called family law is all about. Open your eyes sheople!

Posted by: RW of 11:56pm November 10, 2008
Read all 37 comments

We welcome your comments on this story. Comments are submitted for possible publication on the condition that they may be edited. Please provide your full name. We also require a working email address - not for publication, but for verification. The location field is optional. Read our publication guidelines.

Submit your feedback here:

(So you don't have to retype your details each time)

No comments:

Bookmark and Share