- Font size:DecreaseIncrease
- Email article:Email
- Print article:Print
- Submit comment:Submit comment
December 14, 2008 12:00am
LAWYERS have criticised family law changes, saying they give parents a false belief they are entitled to 50-50 shared custody.
The laws were introduced two years ago by the Howard government and dubbed father-friendly as they emphasised shared parenting responsibilities.
But the laws have given people a belief they are automatically entitled to share their children equally with their former partner - and so reduce child support payments.
Experienced family lawyers said this week they had serious worries about the changes.
Accredited family law specialist David Schetzer said good progress had been made in recent years in giving parents, particularly fathers, better access to their children.
This was in response to social changes that saw male parents more active in raising children.
"But we certainly haven't got to a 7-7 arrangement," he said, referring to some parents belief that children could live alternative weeks with each parent.
"It (the laws) was foisted upon the previous government after pressure from the men's groups.
"I don't necessarily think it's been a good thing for the child. Sometimes the rights of the parent have been upheld above the rights of the child.
"Imagine six or seven nights in one parent's home, then six or seven nights with the other parent?
"A lot of male parents have looked at what is in their best interests, not the best interests of the child."
Mr Schetzer said people misunderstood their finances if they thought having more time with their children meant it would cost them less.
"It's probably true to say some people are using children to maximise their property entitlements.
"Some people are effectively using children as a means to a financial advantage."
Mr Schetzer said those people were "absolutely" more likely to try to use the new laws to increase custody time as a way of cutting their financial commitment.
Another accredited family law specialist, Caroline Counsel, said the laws set up a debate about the rights of the parents to share custody, rather than focusing on the best interests of the child.
"The moment you start being prescriptive in your legislation and building in phrases such as 'the court must consider whether equal time is appropriate', you are immediately setting up an expectation in the minds of the client that may not be in the best interests of children," Ms Counsel said.
She said men had been badly treated, when access to their children was restricted to alternate weekends and half of school holidays, but that was changing.
"Children do not think in terms of hours and days; they do not divide up the weeks in terms of mummy and daddy," she said.
"They need to be loved and mummy and daddy to stop fighting."
Law Institute of Victoria family law division chairman Stephen Winspear said people were "fixating" on the idea that they would have equal access, which was "distracting and inflammatory".
1 comment:
The thought process of the people quoted is clearly still "women own children" rather than two parents created them.
Let me disabuse them of the notion of ownership. Study after study shows two parents in the lives of the children is what is in their best interest not one male or female as a visitor.
Post a Comment