A number of organisations are very upset, claiming that the Rudd government is promoting a fatherless society. What they are mad about is the December 2009 publication of a report by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) to the Attorney-General’s Department and the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) regarding its in-depth evaluation of the changes made in 2006 to the Australian family law system.
This evaluation had been commissioned by the Attorney General’s Department, and FaHCSIA. Accordingly, the AIFS undertook to conduct a wide range of surveys and interviews across the country, seeking feedback from 24,000 Australian parents who had gone through the system, as well as over 500 grandparents. In addition AIFS gathered feedback from the experts and professionals working in Australian family law. In addition they carefully analysed more than 1,700 court files and case studies.
The overall conclusion was that the family law system was working well, with increased use of family relationship services, a lower rate of court filings, and a trend of not going straight to the family court to resolve issues but seeking mediation first. It found that most people were able to work things out regarding the children by themselves in the first year.
There were, however, concerns about the reform’s effects on family dynamics in the situations with violence and abuse. The evaluation found that for an important minority of children equal care time between their two parents was a serious concern. But for children where there was no violence or abuse, equal care time was found to work well.
Professor Alan Hayes, the director of AIFS, says that “More than one million children currently live in separated families. The way in which separated couples resolve parenting arrangements, make decisions about their children and conduct their relationships all have significant and lasting impacts on their children’s lives for better or worse depending on how well they manage post-separation parenting. The message out of this evaluation is clear – ongoing conflict between separated parents leads to worse outcomes for children.”
The evaluation found that many Australian parents seriously misunderstand the various changes to the family law system, and seem to believe that ‘equal shared parental responsibility’ (which means shared decision making and financial support) allows for equal shared care – or 50/50 time. But this is wrong. It does not guarantee equal time access to the children. This basic misunderstanding of what the law actually calls for makes the situation much more complex, vexed and difficult for parents, relationship services professionals, lawyers and the courts.
Dr Hayes explains, “This misunderstanding is due in part to the way the notion of shared parental responsibility is expressed in the legislation. It has led to disillusionment among some fathers who find that it doesn’t automatically mean 50/50 care time. And indeed, the law was never intended to provide for shared care time in cases where there are safety concerns.
He went on, “”This misunderstanding is due in part to the way the notion of shared parental responsibility is expressed in the legislation. It has led to disillusionment among some fathers who find that it doesn’t automatically mean 50/50 care time. And indeed, the law was never intended to provide for shared care time in cases where there are safety concerns. Lawyers in particular have indicated that the 2006 reforms have promoted a focus on the parents’ rights rather than children’s needs and that the family law system doesn’t do enough to support arrangements that are suitable for a child’s particular level of development.”
Negotiating and deciding upon the parenting arrangements must be different for every couple, as every relationship has its own history, dynamics, and patterns. This study found that even after some years up to 10% of separated couples had still reached no satisfactory agreement over access to the children.
For those who had worked things out the use of counselling, mediation, family dispute resolution and lawyers was helpful, but nearly half of the parents found that just negotiating between themselves led to their best outcome. That group also expressed a belief in their own self-determination to a higher degree than others.
The report also looked into the after separation relationships between grandparents, grandchildren and the parents of these grandchildren. These family situations can be complex and fraught with anger. It is thought that maintaining these relationships ‘will not always be of benefit to the family’. It is likely that grandparents will “take sides”, probably of their own child, which could exacerbate the level of conflict between the parents and add immeasurably to the distress of the grandchildren. Research has demonstrated that grandchildren whose parents have separated are more likely to have contact with their maternal than paternal grandparents, except in unusual circumstances.
One of the purposes of the reforms was to lessen the likelihood for the parent’s separation to sever the relationship between children and their grandparents, or other significant people in their lives. So the 2006 law states that children have the right to spend time on a regular basis with the people who are significant to their care, welfare and development such as grandparents where this is consistent with the children’s best interests. I think that is a very good thing.
The breakdown of families is heart breaking, and leads to such suffering for all involved. All the human law, counsellors, family dispute resolvers, family courts, and lawyers cannot ever fully repair or make up for the deep wounding that occurs to all involved when families are destroyed: the mother, the father, each child, each grandparent. It is probably unrealistic for society to think that any external institution, or organisation, or even dozens of organisations, can undo the human harm dealt out by separation and divorce. But no one comes out of these situations truly satisfied; there is always compromise, on all sides.
I sympathise with the men’s and fathers’ groups that see the issues through a lens of male disadvantage, but after having read the evaluation I think the government is doing the best they can in an impossible situation. To me the real culprit is the original breakdown of the relationship. That is where all men can and need to take action, that is where you still have the power: to strengthen your marriages, your homes, your families so that you have a stronghold against the ruination that relationship breakdown inflicts on yourself and your loved ones.
You can read the full report at the AIFS website http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fle/