Men's Rights Agency -
Feminism
B. The agenda of the fathers' rights movement continued
2. Custody/residence
Some fathers' rights groups do not comment on the issue of which parent should be granted residence. A number of the groups do. Commonly they request a presumption in favour of shared parenting.84 The Family Law Injustice Group Helping Together is more cautious than most. It commits itself to the comment that "co-parenting holds potential for resolving children's distress".85
Research on the benefits of shared parenting is at a very preliminary stage. Clearly shared parenting promises positive benefits for the children86 and both parents87 if it can be made to work. It is also obvious that in order to be successful there needs to be a capacity and commitment on the part of both parents to parent, a respect for each other as parents, a willingness to separate their relationship as parents from the spousal relationship they are choosing to terminate, and either some degree of compatibility in parenting approaches, or a deep commitment to co-operation with each other.88 Where these elements are not present, and/or there is a high level of continuing conflict between the parents, preliminary research tends to suggest that the children will be much worse off than they would under sole parenting arrangements.89 Many commentators take the view that court-ordered shared parenting is never appropriate, because it should only be encouraged in those cases where both parents voluntarily agree to it, and in such cases a court order is unlikely to be necessary. The degree of acrimony demonstrated towards the custodial parent by some fathers' rights groups indicates a level of interparental conflict that, if shared by the groups' members, would seem to make shared parenting an inappropriate option in the circumstances. It has also been suggested that a couple's shared ideological commitment to egalitarian and non-patriarchal relationships is conducive to successful shared parenting.90 Again, for men who share the views of some of the groups, a commitment to the patriarchal family might make shared parenting unlikely to be successful.
The manner in which some of these groups juxtapose issues sometimes indicates that the appeal of shared parenting partly lies in a reduction in obligations for the payment of child support and/or a more even matrimonial property split. For example, Parent Without Rights comments that "custody should be shared 50/50 as the norm with no maintenance".91 For some groups shared parenting is presented as the better option from the children's perspective in that it arguably produces better adjusted kids and prevents "parentectomy".92
For many of these groups, however, shared parenting is primarily cast as an equality issue between fathers and mothers. Participation in parenting is argued to be a "right”93 of both parents. These groups argue that sole custody is overwhelmingly awarded by the Family Court to mothers and this demonstrates a bias in the system. For example, Parent Without Rights submits that only 5 per cent of fathers who are able to reach a full contested hearing of their custody applications are successful.94
Men's Rights Agency claims that, of the men who actually go to court, only 18 per cent get sole custody.95 Equality for Fathers claims that only 2 per cent of males get custody through court decisions.96 These statistical claims are generally unreferenced by the groups and so it is unclear what their data sources are.97
There has been no large scale empirical research in Australia into custody determinations. Two small studies of custody orders were conducted in 198098 and 199299 which found that only 10 per cent of the cases were actually contested In these fathers got sole custody in 31 per cent of cases in both studies and custody of at least one child in 44 per cent of such cases in 1980 and between 37 per cent and 41 per cent in 1992.100 These figures are quite high when it is considered that in the vast majority of families prior to separation it is women who are still primarily responsible for the actual work of caring for the children, and one would expect that to be reflected in custody determinations.101 As Annette Hasche has stated, the results of the studies illustrate that:
fathers, for whatever reasons, do not apply for custody in a significant number of cases.... Although the general community, that is a majority of the parents concerned, may decide that "the female of the species is the better parent", the figures presented in the studies do not show that the judges of the Family Court do likewise.102
Various explanations are proffered by the groups as to how the “bias" in the Family Court works. Parent Without Rights lists a number of barriers to fathers gaining custody. These are:
Equality for Fathers claims that the court doesn't look at which is the better parent but looks at whether the mother is a bad parent.104 Julia Brophy suggests that fathers themselves may contribute to this. She states that, "In general fathers do not argue their case for the custody of children on the basis of a history of shared child care: rather they attempt to discredit the mothers".105 Fathers who run such arguments may not have any history of truly shared child care to put before the court.
Only a few of the groups address the fact that in the vast majority of cases mothers end up with responsibility for the children by private arrangement with the father. Parent Without Rights106 submits that men consent to women having sole custody for reasons such as misinformation by their lawyers, restraining orders, the threat of being denied access, being hassled by their ex-partner's new boyfriend, the enormous legal expenses they must incur in fighting custody, reconciliation hopes, and society's gender typecasting.
Men's Confraternity is alone in arguing that there should be a presumption in favour of sole custody for men. It says that:
Men should be given first consideration for custody of the children on the basis that they are more caring, better equipped for long-term planning and hence able to provide a more stable life for the children. Women on the other hand tend to be emotive, superficial and self centred.107
Yet in another of its comments it says that, "the courts have wrongly shown a tendency to place the child in the care of a single mother, even where the father has formed a new partnership which would make a substitute mother available".108 If mothers are "emotive, superficial and self centred" it is surprising that fathers would want their children to be cared for by a substitute mother. The suggestion also presents the mother as disposable or replaceable which is in stark contrast to its claims that the biological father is irreplaceable or indisposable.
84 The Family Law Reform Party (JSC CFLI: CSS); Parent without Rights (communication with research assistant); Family Life (communication with research assistant); DADs (communication with research assistant); Women and Grandparents treated Unfairly by Family Law (JSC FLA); The Family Law Reform Association NSW Inc (communication with research assistant); the Child Support Action Group (communication with research assistant); the Non-Custodial Men's Support Group (communication with research assistant); the LFAA (Executive Committee submission to JSC FLA); Equality For Fathers (JSC CFLI: CSS). Whether shared parenting means a genuine commitment to undertaking 50 per cent of responsibility for the actual work of child care for all groups, or simply an opportunity to have greater access and more involvement in decision- making processes, is not clear. See: Bertoia and Drakich, above, n 9.
85 JSC CFLI: CSS.
86 In that they get to have an ongoing relationship with both parents.
87 In that both get to maintain ongoing contact with the children, while neither has to bear the sole responsibility of residence. Thus both parents get the time to meet their own needs, develop new relationships and career opportunities. See the Family Law Council, Access - Some Options for Reform, AGPS, Canberra, 1987.
88 In the Marriage Cullen (1981)8 Fam LR 35; FLC 91-113; In the Marriage of H (1995) 19 Fam LR 165; D Coller, "Joint Custody: Research, Theory, Policy" (1988) 27 Family Process 459.
89 Wallerstein and Blakeslee, above, n 65; F Furstenberg and A Cherlin, above, n 66. See also J Behrens, "Shared Parenting: Possibilities... and Realities" (1996) 21 Alternative Law Journal 213; P Durst, N Wedemeyer and L Zurcher, "Parenting Relationships after Divorce: Implications for Practice" (Sept-Oct 1985) 30 Social Work: 426. These authors also suggest that flexible work schedules and sufficient income may also be necessary to make joint custody work. For a contrary opinion see W Bender, "Joint Custody: The Option of Choice" (1994) 21(3/4) Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 115.
90 G Russell, The Changing Role of Fathers, University of Queensland Press, London, 1983.
91 Communication with research assistant. See also DADs (NSW) (JSC CFLI: CSS); Equality for Fathers (JSC CFLI: CSS).
92 LFAA, Rockhampton, (JSC CFLI: CSS). This organisation also suggests greater emphasis be given to the wishes of the child and that the term "custody" be replaced by the term “parenting". Note that the latter request has been granted by the Family Law Reform Act 1995. See C Bridge, "Shared Residence in England and New Zealand - A Comparative Analysis" (1996) 8:1 Child and Family Law Quarterly 12, who argues that, while in theory the purpose of shared physical parenting is to improve the welfare of the child, the reality is that it may have a lot more to do with meeting the needs of the parents.
93 DADs (NSW) (JSC FLA); Parent Without Rights (JSC FLA); Family Life (communication with research assistant.
94 JSC CFLI: CSS.
95 Communication with research assistant.
96 ALRC, Matrimonial Property.
97 It would appear that one common statistical method used by fathers' rights groups involves polling their own members. See text to n 111.
98 See F Horwill and S Bordow, The Outcome of Defended Custody Cases in the Family Court of Australia, Family Court of Australia, Research Report No 4, Sydney, 1983.
99 S Bordow, "Defended Custody Cases in the Family Court of Australia: Factors Influencing the Outcome" (1994)8 AJFL 252.
100 The latter figure includes split decisions, that is decisions where the children were separated or joint custody was awarded.
101 R Dunlop, The Influence of Mothers and Fathers Ten Years After Divorce, Fifth Australian Family Research Conference, Brisbane, 27-29 November, 1996; S Boyd, "Investigating Gender Bias in Canadian Child Custody Law: Reflections on Questions and Methods" in J Brockman and D Chunn (eds), Investigating Gender Bias: Law, Courts and the Legal Profession, Thompson Educational Publishing Inc, Toronto, 1993, p 172. C Cowan and P Bronstein, “Fathers' Roles in the Family: Implications for Research Intervention and Change" in P Bronstein and C Cowan (eds), Fatherhood Today: Men's Changing Role in the Family, John Wiley, New York, 1988 argue that there is a significant discrepancy between men's actual involvement with their children and what men and women think that the male role in modern families ought to be.
102 “Sex Discrimination in Child Custody Determinations”, (1989) 3 AJFL 218 at p 220.
103 JSC CFLI: CSS
104 JSC CFLI: CSS
105 "Custody and Inequality in Britain" in C Smart and S Sevenhuijsen above, n 9.
106 JSC FLA: Men's Confraternity (ALRC, Matrimonial Property).
107 ALRC, Matrimonial Property
108 ALRC, Matrimonial Property
3. Enforcement of access/contact
A. The problem
Many fathers' rights groups109 claim that court ordered contact is not enforced and is frequently disobeyed by the custodial parent. The Child Support Action Group, for example, says that custodial parents can “unilaterally decide that the non-custodial parent is an unsuitable parent or decide to punish them and withdraw access".110 Lone Fathers Association claims that the main source of continual litigation in family law is the frustration of court ordered contact by the custodial parent This group is alone in attempting to provide some substantiation of these claims. It reports interviewing one hundred divorced or separated men to find that 85 per cent had experienced denial of access.111 However a sample consisting solely of members of the Lone Fathers Association is clearly not representative of non-custodial parents generally, and we are not aware of any scholarly studies in Australia which either support or refute the claims made by fathers' rights groups in this regard.112 Interestingly, the Australian Law Reform Commission has recommended that the Family Court should be more robust in refusing to make contact orders in the future where it is not in the best interests of the child to order contact.113 Perhaps the over willingness of the court to grant contact in such cases has indirectly led to some of the problems in complex contact.114
For some fathers' rights groups denial of contact is presented as a denial of the rights of the children. For example, Lone Fathers' Association claims that when access is denied, children are denied their basic human right to have a relationship with their father and are "held hostage" in breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.115 For many of these groups the issue, however, is primarily one of equity between the parents. The perception is that court orders (such as protection orders, maintenance orders and child support payments) are harshly enforced against men, while women are dealt with lightly when they breach access orders.116 For example, Parent Without Rights117 claims that the Family Court doesn't jail mothers for denial of access, soft tactics like counselling and mediation are used instead, but that fathers are jailed "almost weekly". They also contrast the difficulties a non-custodial parent faces in enforcing an access order with their own private resources while the public enforcement of maintenance orders is the responsibility of the Child Support Agency.
The claim that court orders are harshly enforced against men is in fact controversial. Some would argue that criminal assault in the home is not prosecuted as it should be but diverted into quasi-criminal enforcement strategies, such as protection orders.118 Others argue, in turn, that protection orders are not taken seriously enough and that there are limits to their effectiveness and enforcability.119 The Family Court, in particular, has been criticised for failing to use the penalties available in the Family Law Act to deal with male violence.120 It is also the case that spousal maintenance orders are rarely made and difficult to enforce,121 and that the collection rate for child support is very poor.122
The Non-Custodial Men's Support Group stands alone amongst fathers' rights groups in acknowledging the need to accept that "lots of people don't want to see their kids.123 It is important not to lose sight of this perspective. The Women's Legal Resource Centre124 comments that, in its view, a more significant problem is not so much custodial parents failing to provide access as non-custodial parents failing to exercise access "despite repeated requests from custodial parents and children for access to occur".
B. Suggested solutions to the problems of enforcing access
(i) “Malicious" denial
A range of solutions are proffered by the groups in respect of the "malicious" denial of access by the custodial parent The first is that child support should be automatically withheld when "lawful",125 or even "reasonable",126 access is denied.127 Men's Confraternity argues that prior to the advent of the recent Child Support Scheme if the wife refused access the father could withhold payments of child support until his access was reinstated. According to Men's Confraternity this was a "counterbalancing" that kept both parties relatively honest. With the administrative enforcement of child support payments under the Child Support Scheme this "father's power of refusal" has been taken away.128 An obvious attraction of this solution is the sense that access is what men pay for when they pay child support. Parent Without Rights makes this explicit when it claims that child support should be a "user pays" system.129
For other groups the converse argument is run. The poor record of fathers in paying child support is used to justify giving fathers more contact with children. For example, the Family Law Reform Party argues that access is the best and cheapest incentive to encourage non-custodial parents to support their children.130
Some of these comments betray an attitude of commodification towards children - a sense of children as possessions of their parents and an absence of the sense that children are dependent people with needs that are separate to and that must at times take priority over those of their parents. There is a lack of recognition, for example, that responsible and adult parenting sometimes means sacrificing one's own immediate interests as an individual, including one's sense of fairness, to ensure that the needs of one's children do not go unfulfilled.131 In keeping with this, few of these groups raise the point that withholding child support will impact adversely on the welfare of the children. The Child Support Action Group raises this concern but then goes on to say that "[t]he flaw in this argument is that the custodial parent makes a clear and conscious choice in the matter". 132 If anything can be taken from this comment it seems to be that any harm done to the children by the withdrawal of child support is the custodial parent's fault. At another point, instead of suggesting that child maintenance should be denied, it suggests that it should be reduced, and adds, "of course, for the children's well being, it would be preferable for legal leverage to be applied to custodial parents who deny access".133
A second enforcement suggestion, which betrays a similar lack of sensitivity to the position of the children, is that custody should be used as an enforcement mechanism. In other words, when access is denied custody should be reversed. Parent without Rights,134 for example, suggests that custody should be switched to the father if the child has been brainwashed into not wanting access to the father, "as is usually the case if a child doesn't want access".135
A third suggestion is that criminal sanctions should be imposed if contact orders are breached. For example, Dads Against Discrimination suggests the imposition of fines on the custodial parent for non-compliance with court ordered contact.136 Parent Without Rights137 argues that denial of access should be treated as seriously as rape and that imprisonment should be imposed. To counter the suggestion that jailing the custodial parent will detrimentally affect the children, it suggests that this should occur while the non-custodial parent is taking holidays and can look after the children. Lone Fathers Association runs a similar argument and yet suggests at another point in its submissions, that penal sanctions are not appropriate or effective in cases involving abduction/custody/access/maintenance where the offender is under emotional trauma and no injury or loss is sustained by the spouse or children of the marriage. In the same submission it suggests that disobedience of court orders is not contempt (and that violence and death will result if it is treated as such).138 Clearly in these latter submissions it is contemplating situations where the non-custodial parent is breaching court orders.
Obviously there will be some custodial parents who have failed to resolve their issues around the demise of their relationship with the non-custodial parent and who allow this to cloud their ability to act in their children's best interests on the issue of contact. In the absence of research, any attempt to estimate the extent of this phenomenon is speculative and impressionistic. What is clear is that it is difficult to come up with solutions in such cases that don't unacceptably harm the children, particularly when one considers the extent to which their interests are bound up with the well being of the resident parent 139
(ii) Violence against the custodial parent
Solutions are suggested by some fathers’ rights groups for the situation where the non-custodial parent is legally denied access because of domestic violence against the mother but "still long[s] to see their children as much as their children long to see them".140 The language used by the few groups who address this issue generally does not explicitly acknowledge that they are talking about situations of violence by one of the spouses against the other. It tends to suggest conflict between the two, which does not bear on the relationship either has with the children. This contradicts the considerable evidence that witnessing domestic violence detrimentally influences the children's welfare.141
It is sometimes suggested that the provision of supervised contact centres might "cater for antagonistic parents".142 Although supervised contact centres may provide assistance in some cases, there is no recognition by these groups of the disadvantages of such centres. The Women's Legal Resource Centre notes that such centres "can be used as an easy solution to a difficult problem, and contact may be ordered in circumstances where the child's safety and welfare is compromised.”143 Indeed, other commentators describe contact at such centres as "prison visits" and suggest that "[c]ontact centres" and supervised contact should be abolished, since contact with violent and abusive fathers is unnecessary and not in the child's best interests". 144
(iii) Practical limitations
The third scenario where access by the non-custodial parent may be impeded relates to practical considerations, such as distance and the costs of access.145 Many fathers' rights groups seek to prevent the custodial parent from moving the children more than a specified distance from their previous place of residence. The Lone Fathers Association names it "abduction" or "kidnapping" when the custodial parent takes the child out of the jurisdiction in order to deny access. Some put the distance it is permissible for the custodial parent to move as 50 miles,146 some as 100 kilometres147 and some talk about "reasonable proximity to the other parent”.148 Most of these groups would permit such a move only with the consent of the non-custodial parent,149 and/or a Family Court order.150
The Child Support Action Group proposes that liability for child support should cease if the custodial parent does not get such permission. The Family Law Reform Party would permit the custodial parent to freely take the children away from the non-custodial parent, but only if they bear the non-custodial parent's costs of access afterwards.151 None of these groups suggest similar restrictions to prevent the contact parent from moving away from the children.152
A number of fathers' rights groups suggest that fathers have difficulties exercising access because of the costs involved and propose that such costs be credited as the payment of child support.153
109 The Family law Reform Association NSW Inc (communication with research assistant); Parents without Partners (communication with research assistant, compared with other submissions by this group); The Family Law Reform Party (LFAA Conference, 1997); The Australian Family Law Action Group (JSC FLA); the Non-Custodial Men’s Support Group (communication with research assistant); The Family Life Movement (communication with research assistant); Women Who Want to be Women (JSC FLA); Parent without Rights (ALRC, Contempt); LFAA (WA) (JSC FLA), LFAA (ALRC, Contempt).
110 (NSW) JSC CFLI: CSS.
111 ALRC, Contempt
112 In a document produced by LFAA and Men's Confraternity (Campaign for Child Support Justice) it is stated that "Studies show that 40 per cent of custodial parents deny access for vindictive reasons". No reference for this claim is provided. In the US, Wallerstein and Kelly, above, n 65 at 33, estimated that 20 per cent of mothers in their study saw no value in the father's continued contact and actively tried to sabotage the meetings. Simpson, McCarthy and Walker, above, n 58 at p42, acknowledge that there is a percentage of women who are “unable to resolve negative feelings towards ex-husbands and find it difficult to accept fathers continuing contact with children". However, they also point out, at pp 30-34. that fathers who have lost contact with their children demonstrate high levels of bitterness towards their ex-wives, who may have very different accounts of what actually happened in this regard. They suggest that often fathers are at least equally responsible with their ex-partners for the demise of their relationship with their children, but are unwilling to see or take responsibility for this. See also J Pearson and N Thoenness, "The denial of visitation rights: A preliminary look at its incidence, correlates, antecedents and consequences" (1988) 10 Law and Policy 363 on factors which lead to denial of and problems with access; A McMurray and A M Blackmore, "Influences on Parent-Child Relationships in NonCustodial Fathers" (1993)14 Australian Journal of Marriage and the Family 151, on non-custodial parents' perceptions about access; C Smart, “The Legal and Moral Ordering of Child Custody" (1991) 18 Journal of Law and Society 485 and S Boyd, “W(h)ither feminism? The Department of Justice public discussion paper on custody and access,” (1995) 12 Revue Canadienne De Droit Familial 331, on the invisible and undervalued work women do to sustain access.
113 ALRC. For the sake of the kids; Complex Contact Cases and the Family Court, Report No 73 AGPS, Canberra, 1995, p 32.
114 Interestingly research has suggested that once the court gets involved, the chances of long-term contact being successful are substantially reduced: S Hirst and G Smiley, "The Access Dilemma - A Study of Access Patterns Following Marriage Breakdown” (1984) 22 Conciliation Courts Review 41.
115 Newcastle Branch (LFAA Conference, 1997); Parent Without Rights (submission to ALRC reference on Intractable Access, above, at n 113 (hereafter, ALRC, Intractable Access)).
116 The Family Law Council is currently monitoring the penalties imposed by Family Court. The Penalties Project should be completed in 1998.
117 ALRC, Intractable Access and JSC FLA. See also: DADs, NSW, (JSC FLA); LFAA, (ALRC, Contempt).
118 J Scutt, Even in the Best of Homes: Violence in the Family, 2nd ed, Penguin, Ringwood, 1990.
119 Joint Select Committee, The Family Law Act 1975: Aspects of its Operation and Interpretation, AGPS, Canberra, 1992, paras 7.110-7.117.
120 Ibid, at pp 164-5; ALRC Contempt Report No 35, especially the submission of the Police Commissioner’s Advisory Group (PCAG).
121 Orders for spousal maintenance are made in less than 5 per cent of cases, Australian Family Law and Practice, CCH Looseleaf, para 25-505. But note the recent increased interest in spousal maintenance, see M Quinlan, "Spousal Maintenance" (1995) 69 Law Institute Journal 872.
122 The Child Support Evaluation Advisory Group, Child Support in Australia, AGPS, Canberra, 1992, concluded that the enforcement activity by the Agency was very disappointing.
123 Communication with research assistant
124 ALRC, Intractable Access. See the discussion in C Smart and B Neale, "Arguments Against Virtue- Must Contact be Enforced?" May [1997] Family Law 332; K Munro. “The Inapplicability of Rights Analysis in Post-Divorce Child Custody Decision Making" 30 (3) Alberta Law Review 852 at p 865; E Kruk, "Psychological and Structural Factors Contributing to the Disengagement of Non-Custodial Fathers After Divorce" (1992) 30 Family and Conciliation Courts Review 81.
125 DADs, NSW, (JSC FLA).
126 The Campaign for Men's Rights, Qld, (JSC Cal: CSS). Clearly what is proposed by unlawful" denial is denial of access where there is a court order in place. The proposal to withdraw child support where "reasonable” access is denied might go further than this.
127 The Family Law Reform Association NSW Inc (JSC CFLI: CSS); CSAG (JSC CFLI: CSS); Parent without Rights (JSC CFLI: CSS).
128 JSC CFLI: CSS.
129 JSC CFLI: CSS, LFAA (JSC FLA).
130 JSC CFLI: CSS. See also LFAA (ALRC, Contempt). This is not an uncontroversial claim. See, for example. B Simpson, P McCarthy and J Walker, Being There: Fathers After Divorce, above, n 58, who found no relationship between the payment of maintenance and the quantity or type of contact fathers had with their children. Compared with W Bender, "Joint Custody: The Option of Choice" (1994) 21 Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 115 at p 122.
131 On this see also Bertoia and Drakich, above, n 9.
132 JSC CFLI: CSS
133 JSC CFLI: CSS.
134 ALRC, Intractable Access. See also: LFAA, Qld, (ALRC, Contempt); Parents Without Partners (communication with research assistant).
135 Mothers brainwashing children is a part of what it identifies as the "the parental alienation syndrome", (CSAG, JSC CFLI: CSS; Parents without Rights. JSC FLA) based on the work of R Gardner, The Parental Alienation Syndrome and the Differentiation Between Fabrication and Genuine Child Sex Abuse, Creative Therapeutics, New Jersey, 1987. In the Australian context see K Byrne, "Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse and the Expert Witness: Common Problems" (1991) 6 Australian Family Lawyer 14, who is cited by fathers' rights groups. See for example; LFAA, (ALRC, Children).
136 It is also sometimes suggested that the custodial parent should pay the non-custodial parent's costs when they need to take action to enforce an access order. See The Gay and Married Men's Association (ALRC, Contempt). The general rule in family law cases is that each party bears his or her own costs - s 117(1). The ALRC is considering whether this situation should be amended in its reference on the Review of the Adversarial System of Litigation.
137 See also the Family Law Reform Association NSW Inc (communication with research assistant)
138 LFAA, Qld, (ALRC, Contempt).
139 See further the discussion on this in ALRC, For the Sake of the Kids, above, n 113.
140 LFAA, WA, (JSC FLA).
141 For examp1e, see H Davidson, A Report to the Presldent of the American Bar Association: The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children 1994; P Jaffe et al, Children of Battered Women, Sage Publications, California, 1990; A Blanchard, “Violence in Families: The Effects on Children" (1993) 34 Family Matters 31; H Hughes, "Psychological and Behavioral Correlates of Family Violence in Child Witnesses and Victims" (1988) 58 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 77; J Alessi and K Hearn, “Group Treatment of Children in Shelters for Battered Women", in A Roberts (ed), Battered Women and their Families, Springer, New York, 1984; R Morley and A Mullender, "Domestic Violence and Children: What do we know from Research” in Morley and Mullender; above, n 66.
142 To borrow the wording used by to Family Law Reform Association NSW Inc(Communication with research assistant). LFAA (ARLC, Equality) also asks for funding of supervised access centres.
143 ALRC, Intractable Access.
144 L Harne and J Radford, “Reinstating Patriarchy: The Politics of the Family and the New Legislation" in Mullender and Morley above n 23. p 83.
145 ALRC, Contempt.
146 LFAA, Newcastle, (LFAA Conference, 1997).
147 Equality for Fathers (JSC CFLI: CSS).
148 LFAA (ALRC, Matrimonial Property).
149 CSAG, NSW. (JSC CFLI: CSS); Parent without Rights (3SC FL-A); LFAA (ALRC, Matrimonial Property).
150 CSAG, NSW, (JSC CFLI: CSS). LFAA, Newcastle, would allow the Family Court to give permission but submits that it should only grant permission if the father is either not interested in access or is abusing the child (not the mother), (paper to LFAA Conference, 1997). Parent Without Rights submits that the permission of a mediation centre counsellor should suffice (JSC FLA). It is interesting to note that comments in the media suggested that the recent amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 might have satisfied some of these suggestions by placing "constraints on custodial parents' freedom of movement'9. See for example B Arndt, "Landmark Case to Determine Custody Rights" Sydney Morning Herald 21 March 1997. For further comment on the effect of the amendments, see L Young, "Are Primary Residence Parents as Free to Move as Custodial Parents Were? (1996) Australian Family Lawyer; S Christie, “There will be Bloodshed: Parental Relocation and the Family Law Reform Act 1995", Polemic, 1997.
151 JSC CFLI: CSS. See also Equality for Fathers (JSC CFLI: CSS).
152 The issue was discussed by the Full Family Court in B and B: Family Law Reform Act 1995 (1997) 21 Fam LR 676; FLC 92-517
153 CSAG, NSW, (JSC CFLI: CSS); DADs, Qld, (JSC CFLI: CSS): The Non-Custodial Parents Reform Group (JSC CFLI: CSS). That income may be a significant factor in the preservation of the relationship between non-custodial parents and their children is supported by the findings of Simpson, McCarthy and Walker, above, n 58, p 18.
Continue on to The Agenda of the Fathers Rights Movement - Child Support
Go back to Index for Fathers' Rights Groups in Australia
Go back to Feminism Intro Page