Prev
Next

Getting tough on parents when kids come second

Chris Gardiner

by Chris Gardiner

04 Feb 05:55am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Family, Family Law, Men And Women, Parenting

55 comments

Pay attention all parents before the Family Court and any parent who has come to the attention of the Police or community services. Here’s the deal: your kids’ rights trump yours.

Some kids are just on their own

Last week the Government got a report suggesting that some parents think that a system that respects a child’s right to have the benefit of access to both parents means that they have a right, an automatic and overriding right, to equal custody.

If I may abandon the normal strictures of politeness for the sake of kids having their lives wrecked by selfish or abusive parents - stuff that.

Pay attention all parents before the Family Court and any parent who has come to the attention of the Police or community services. Here’s the deal: your kids’ rights trump yours.

Last week the Government got a report suggesting that some parents think that a system that respects a child’s right to have the benefit of access to both parents means that they have a right, an automatic and overriding right, to equal custody.

If I may abandon the normal strictures of politeness for the sake of kids having their lives wrecked by selfish or abusive parents - stuff that.

We have started to see a debate again about the basic principles that should apply to kids when their parents can’t get their act together. So let’s be clear about the basics when it comes to the welfare of children.

First, let me discuss custody after separation and divorce. If two parents can’t agree on what constitutes the best arrangements for the best interests of their child, the community must do so. The key issue, and the fundamental rights to be considered first, relate to the child’s well-being. The community’s representatives in this matter – the Family Court – will take into account many factors, including the benefits that would normally come from access to both parents. Each case must be dealt with on its individual merits. But let’s be clear about the one unchanging principle – kids rights come first, and those rights may not be consistent with a 50:50 split on custody.

If your behavior in the family relationships involves violence or intimidation, against the child or your partner, or your circumstances are not as favorable to the security and nurture of the child as those of your partner, don’t be surprised about limitations, or uneven split, on access and custody. And if you flout the Court’s decisions about access or ongoing financial support, expect the community to come down hard on your recalcitrant behind.

Second, let me talk about parents who are unwilling or unable to properly care for their kids. If you do not use the resources the community provides you for the care and education of your child – allowances and free schooling, for example – the community should be able to tell you how to use those allowances, and sanction your unwillingness to ensure your child gets to school. It may even control your access to funds to which you think you have some right and insist on certain rehabilitation or learning programs.

I noticed an argument from an MP last week about whether we can force people to be good parents. Even if we accept the view that we can’t (and I don’t), we sure as hell can act to make sure they don’t harm their kids, and we, on behalf of the kids involved, have a right so to do.

As various lobby groups go the barricades again on the issue of custody rights, and as Government and Opposition consider policy positions for the coming Federal election, let’s just remember this simple principle: when adults are fighting about a kid as if he or she was another part of the property dispute, or when they neglect or abuse their kids, the community needs to play the role of ensuring the rights of the child are put first, and are actively protected and promoted.

So to fighting, or dysfunctional, or abusive parents, and especially to the groups who want to enshrine in family law the interests of the adults involved, here’s the deal – kids rule, OK?

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

Most commented

55 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      07:27am | 04/02/10

      This would be nice if it were true.

      However, children’s interests are not given priority in family law cases. It’s women’s interests that come first. This is why feminist groups are lobbying for the abolition of joint custody - so that divorced women can seize the children and the “child support” money that comes with them.

      Reply

    • Oldie says:

      09:06am | 04/02/10

      Well hello Eric,popped up first today to add your bitter comments!There are bad apples in every barrel and no law or practice can protect everyone and make things perfect in an imperfect world.If we can at least put kid’s first for a change we will have achieved something no-one else has.

    • stealthpooch says:

      09:56am | 04/02/10

      sure Eric, it’s all a conspiracy.  It’s those evil ‘feminist groups’ at work. 

      What a ridiculous argument.

    • Jack Thomas says:

      12:35pm | 04/02/10

      Have to disagree Eric.

      For every one Dad who gets shafted in a Family Court matter, reckon there are fifty Mums (and their kids) shafted by Dads.

      Might help if you stopped thinking everything is a conspiracy theory too.

    • Eric says:

      01:59pm | 04/02/10

      Got any proof for that claim, Jack Thomas? I think you’re just making it up.

      The fact is that in the bad old days before joint custody, mothers got cutody around 90% of the time. Fathers were shafted, being forced to pay a large part of their income to the female, without any requirement for her to document what it was spent on. Visitation rights weren’t enforced, so fathers couldn’t even see their children.

      Your fantasy world doesn’t reflect the reality faced by hundreds of thousands of fathers shafted by the system.

    • Jack Thomas says:

      03:18pm | 04/02/10

      Nope, no proof but neither do you Eric.

      90% hey? Sounds pretty good, like a statistic almost. I’ll see your 90% of the time, and raise you 95% of the time the mothers were awarded custody because they deserved it, having been their fulltime carer etc etc.

      Move on mate. Those evil women are not monitoring your thought patterns either.

    • Eric says:

      03:50pm | 04/02/10

      No proof?

      Thought so.

    • Davy says:

      03:54pm | 04/02/10

      Why is it that in these sort of discussions the woman is the one seen to be making the sacrifices. She is the primary care giver. She gave up her career prospects or whatever.
      Perhaps we should remember who (in those cases )gave up more.
      The woman who gets to stay at home and watch the child grow or the man who has to go to work and put food in their mouths. How much has he given up.
      Perhaps in the vein of affirmative action, when contests of custody occur, the child should automatically go to the father. You know, to get an even playing field sometimes we have to tilt it the other way.

    • Eric says:

      04:05pm | 04/02/10

      So you’ve just been making it up all along, Jack? I admit I’m not surprised.

    • bec says:

      07:51pm | 04/02/10

      If you don’t like how the system works, Davy, become a stay-at-home dad or shut the hell up.

      If you WANT to improve your rates at getting custody and decrease the amount of money paid in child support, then dudes seriously need to take a bigger role in unpaid childcare. The judicial system needs to reflect the mechanics of the community.

      If you really wanted fairness and change, you’d make those things that would improve your situation possible - namely, encouraging women to work and lobby employers to make flexible work arrangements more available to men. All you want to do is whinge.

      Whiny MRAs - pull your thumbs out of your arses.

    • DG says:

      08:02am | 05/02/10

      “The woman who gets to stay at home and watch the child grow or the man who has to go to work and put food in their mouths. How much has he given up”

      No the woman CHOOSES to stay at home and watch the child grow while the man CHOOSES to go to work and put food in their mouths. Why are people so reluctant to accept the choices that they make?

      General rule to men:
      If your partner wont agree to share parenting - either accept it or don’t have kids.
      If your workplace isn’t child friendly - either get a new job or accept that you wont have much contact with your kids.
      If you agree to let the mother be the primary care giver - accept that will continue when she leaves you.

      Stop blaming others for the choices you make - sure the options may not be appealing but the reality is you make a choice. Live with the consequences of your choices. If you want to have kids and keep your high flying job where you never see them, accept that you have chosen employment as a priority over spending time with your family. When it ends up in court accept that is the decision you made - career over contact.

    • Johnno says:

      10:13am | 06/02/10

      Yeah the child support money really does support the child doesn’t it when you consider more than 49% of fathers pay less than $6 per week in Child Support. Add to that figure the billion dollars in Child Support arrears and you soon work out it’s not the fathers supporting children it’s the taxpayer.

    • Kate says:

      09:52pm | 07/02/10

      So where’s your proof Eric?

    • pheelion says:

      12:10am | 08/02/10

      Whenever I see this type of comment (they seem to be a dime a dozen) I can’t help but think that the commentator must have a very short view of history.  Women only got automatic custody for a few decades.  Prior to that women only got access to children if the man abandoned them.  PS, this is the exact behaviour that is being commented on.  You obviously don’t know much history - what do you know about irony?

    • Carlos says:

      02:41pm | 10/05/10

      Whar rubbish Eric. The Family Court has been putting parent’s interests of children since the new laws came about. I know of two women who have been forced to give access to violent ex-partners and one almost ended in tragedy. The father no longer has access but it took police charges and a conviction to get there.
      Some men seem to have a chip on their shoulder and refuse to see these cases without getting in to a gender war.

    • Isabel says:

      07:54am | 04/02/10

      ” the community needs to play the role of ensuring the rights of the child are put first, and are actively protected and promoted.”

      And I believe this includes letting children who are badly behaved in public know that their behaviour is unacceptable. When told “You’re not my mother”, my response is that were my children behaving as they are I would hope that their mother would tell my children off. If boundaries are not being set at home, then we only have ourselves to blame if we silently accept the consequences.

      Reply

    • AJ says:

      02:30pm | 04/02/10

      Just curious how you would know that the principles you live by is the same as for these kids? So you might think they are behaving badly, however their parents might not, whether you think it’s right or wrong doesn’t matter (I’m not talking about illegal activities which is a completely different matter). Taking it one step further, my observation is that people who don’t have children, generally do not have realistic expectations of what is “good” behaviour, so I personally prefer that they especially leave parenting to parents. So no, I won’t tell your children off, I’ll have a talk with you instead if it is a big issue and let you sort it out. And I expect you do the same. What I do agree with is that we are seeing the consequence of boundaries not being set at home. What we can do about it, I’m not sure.

    • Julia says:

      08:48am | 04/02/10

      I’m reading ‘The Spoilt Generation’ by Aric Sigman - psychologist and amateur sociologist (his words).

      He argues that the west is crumbling because the kids have too many rights and don’t know what their responsibilities are.

      I appreciate that there are cases of abuse, but this report indicates to me, kids will use the courts to go to whichever parent is more lenient. The one less likely to discipline them if they stay out too late, take up smoking or drinking.

      I’m also not sure if the courts will really factor in the effect of step parents (either as individuals or sheer volume in some cases) on children, let alone an abusive step-siblings. The courts always tend to focus on the two parties involved in the marriage breakdown.

      Anyhoo, I tend to lean towards being a conservative when it comes to kids. So I disagree that ‘kids rule’. But that’s only because I don’t want to have to remind my child when she’s 18 that she should underwear and not have sex in public with mulitple partners.

      Reply

    • Oldie says:

      09:08am | 04/02/10

      Kids often don’t have good enough parenting with boundaries so that they learn to be responsible and about consequences.If their rights were really respected they have good parenting, adequate food,shelter and love.

    • Martin G says:

      09:32am | 04/02/10

      Mr Gardiner, I’d like to believe this article laid out the way things really happen. No offense intended, but you must be seriously out of touch to even think that anything other than the woman’s rights come first, no matter how loopy, incompetent they are, or even whether they have the means to support the child financially.

      There is still a sinister perception amongst Family Court judges that the dad is unable to properly care for his children, hence the heavy bias of mothers being awarded majority or full custody. Is it any wonder male suicide is so high in this country?

      Reply

    • DG says:

      09:34am | 04/02/10

      “Here’s the deal: your kids’ rights trump yours.”

      If a person lives that philosophy they will not be before the court to begin with. They would be treating their partner with love and respect to set and example for the child (regardless of how they felt about their partner) and they would certainly not be out be attending court in respect of criminal matters.

      Essentially, we are in an era where people have been told how you feel is more important than the promises you have made and the duties or obligations arising from those promises. Accordingly people don’t give a damn about anything other than their own happiness (after all that is their right). Is it any surprise that this extends to choosing their own desires over that of their children (i.e choosing to put a child in child care on a dailybasis so that they can go and do what they want whether it be going shopping or going to work)?

      As for children - given that stability is presenting itself as one of the most important features of a child’s psychological development it is inevitable that shared parenting agreements will very rarely be in the interests of a child and it will be in the interests of the child to stay with the parent who has ordinarily been providing the day to day care of the child. In the vast majority of cases this will be the mother. This is no more gender biased than the fact that is is usually mothers that are the primary caregivers in the first place.

      Reply

    • Phil says:

      03:24pm | 04/02/10

      DG Spot on.

      How I can show my kids love is to love and respect their mother.  (we are still happily married)

      At the same time I am not afraid to discipline them if needed and dish out punishments. I even might smack them but it is rare.

      Many would see my kids as spoilt, but they know I have expectations of them and regardless of what I think of a another person, my children must be nice and well mannered children. It is not all serious, we laugh tickle and play around heaps. But with any punishment always comes love.

      My best mate had an unfortunate seperation with the mother of his child, and whilst his partner was at times horrible for the sake of his daughter I have never in 8-9 years they have been apart heard him speak badly to his daughter about her mother regardless of how nasty she had been. (threatening to take the child interstate and he would never see her again)

      As the daughter grows up she will see the sides, but he never tried to portray the mother as bad or evil, even buying gifts for her to give her mother on special occassions.

    • iansand says:

      09:46am | 04/02/10

      “Rights” is the wrong word.  The true principle is “welfare of the child”.  That concept may be, but is usually not, congruent with the rights of the child (whatever they may be).

      The use of “rights” distorts the debate, and Mr Gardiner should know better.

      Reply

    • DG says:

      10:00am | 04/02/10

      If we are going to be pedantic, I think you’ll find that the legal position is “the best interests of the child”. For example section 60CA of the Family Law Act 1975 provides something to the effect of “In deciding on a particular parenting order, a court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.” (too lazy to look up the actual words).

    • Martin G says:

      09:55am | 04/02/10

      Personally, children already get too many ‘rights’, and not enough responsibilities. How do you expect them to become a valuable and productive member of society as an adult if everything is handed to them on a silver platter as a child?

      Reply

    • bella starkey says:

      11:04am | 04/02/10

      YEAH! Back in my day we worked 15 hours a day down the mine! We ate gruel and drank water left over from boiling potatoes. We had to leave school when we were 8 and when we were there our shoes were held together with sticky tape and rubber bands.

    • Martin G says:

      11:32am | 04/02/10

      You just proved my point, Bella, congratulations

    • Ginger says:

      11:00am | 04/02/10

      I am female in a relationship with a man who has children in a previous relationship. The children were in our care for 6 months last year due to their mother having a break down and intraveneous drug use.
      She moved into her parents house 100km south of where she used to live and wanted the kids back full time. She told them that if they lived with her they could do dancing and soccer. We had our house, stability and everything. She was able to show up to mediation with none of these and get full time care of the children as she stated, “it’s in the best interests of teh children and I am a better parent because I am a mother”. She drops the children off whilst smoking in the car when they are in it, she still uses illicit substances, she doesnt work or have a stable enough relationship with her parent to guarantee permanent housing. We both work full time with a mortgage and are in a stable, loving relationship with one another. We report her to human services all the time but she does not meet the threshold to be on their radar.
      Why should we have to spend money on court, put the children through a legal battle in order to get a good outcome for the children?
      The mediation and family court still side with mother’s because at the end of the day people inherently believe mother’s, by design, are better parents. Our stories would be one of thousands in Australia

      Reply

    • Julia says:

      03:43pm | 04/02/10

      But good on you for caring about them Ginger. Keep them close and be there for them.

    • Phil says:

      04:32pm | 04/02/10

      Ginger

      A very sad situation. My prayers for you for an eventual happy ending.

      Some people should not be allowed to have children, particularly if drugs are involved. Every chance those children will grow up either to be deliquents or possibly druggies themselves.

      You are in a very sad situation.

    • Davy says:

      11:23am | 04/02/10

      If the rights of the child are the thing that is important, than why should society as a whole make the decision as to how the parenting should occur. Following the logic in the article it should be children who decide how the courts run. Perhaps we need a court made up of children who make these decisions.
      Chris, kids dont rule, and nor should they.

      Reply

    • Gavin says:

      12:26pm | 04/02/10

      Your answer is in the novel “Lord of the Flies”. You know that’s not the gist of the article; do you you think you’re funny or clever?

    • Davy says:

      01:45pm | 04/02/10

      Gavin, Lord of the flies has very little to do with children. Its a comment on society under the guise of a book about children. Its basic idea is that the strong get to make the rules.
      The gist of this article is about “lets get tough with wayward parents” and “lets let society decide”.
      Back in the day, “society” decided in all its wisdom that all halfcast children should be wards of the state. They did this largely because they believed that these children were not being looked after adequately. Today “society” again in all its wisdom, (but now so much more enlightened) has decided that a terrible injustice has been done.
      “Society” still however removes kids from their families.
      In some cases it is easy to determine if abuse is or has occured. In others it is extremely difficult and boils down to whatever the current ideology is re child rearing.
      Perhaps we should look at the track record of “society” and see if it is in fact capable of making these potentially life destroying decisions.

    • DG says:

      02:58pm | 04/02/10

      What you have there, Davy (@12:23pm | 04/02/10), is a straw man. A perfect specimen.

      No one suggested that children know what is best for them nor that they should be able to rule themselves. What was suggested is that parents should spend less time worrying about self interest and more time worrying about the interests of the children that they created. Hardly the same as saying children should be a law unto themselves.

      Indeed the child probably has no better idea of what’s best than the parents do with their vested interest in the outcome of proceedings. A magistrate has no such vested interest and should, reasonably, be expected to determine what environment would be best for the child. Of course this all come crashing down when we realise we are simply asking a lawyer to do a child psychologist or sociologists job and guess what’s best for the child.

    • Davy says:

      03:31pm | 04/02/10

      Thankyou DG. I like to produce perfect specimens. You get much better results.

      I would suggest that good parenting entails thinking about the interests of the group (ithe family) rather than a focus on the individual (child or parent). This would also of course need to take into account the needs and desires of each individual that made up that group, without preference.

      The fact that a judge or child pysch has no vested interest ( other than professional) is I believe one of the problems we as a society face in this area.

    • DG says:

      08:16am | 05/02/10

      I agree that, where the parties CAN agree on a mutually acceptable outcome - that should be accepted by the court and they are, they are called Consent orders. That is “good parenting”.

      Personally, I believe that good parenting is to keep treating your partner with love and respect (whether you feel like it or not) and they should do the same. Maybe if we had more parents demonstrating this degree of commitment and compromise, as opposed to the rather selfish “I want out because I feel like it”, there would be a more reasonable prospect of children learning to behave as they “should” rather than however they feel.

      While parents are demonstrating that their word means nothing (getting divorced despite promising to stay with one person for life to the exclusion of all others) and people are free to base their behaviour on whatever makes them happy (regardless of their prior promises and associated obligations) how can we possibly expect children to have any sense of self control, loyalty, respect or commitment?

      The situation here is one where the situation can not be resolved by the two parties because one or both parties are each considering their own interests above all else.

      The point of the article, as I understand it, was to say “Parents - wake up. Get over the narcissism and accept that it’s not just about you. Accept that you should have the best interests of your child at heart” (i.e accept that you are responsible not only for yourself but for the welfare of your child).

      It is a wake-up call to those parents who would, ordinarily, fight to the child just to avoid paying child support (or to get child support) or as an act of revenge against the other partner (which happens with alarming regularity).

    • Paul says:

      02:52pm | 04/02/10

      For all the year$ we spent parroting useless facts at school - apart from the mechanics of mating - it still shocks me that little if no time was spent on communication, relationships,conflict- resolution and parenting. Why would all of us be so competent at big life tasks such as parenting? And you want to get ‘tough’ with people that have either had it tough and know no different, or have had teachers, judges, police and other bureaucratic systems get ‘tough’ on them all their lives. Most are innoculated against this ‘toughness’. Toughness is a marketing campaign for weak desperate politicians.Surely society can act a bit smarter and economically ‘rational’ or logical in its allocation of education resources?

      Reply

    • Arios says:

      05:02pm | 04/02/10

      The irony of “Pay attention all parents before the Family Court and any parent who has come to the attention of the Police or community services” is that these are the very kind of people who would not take the spare time to “better themselves” or show an interest in community matters by reading “The Punch” smile

      So what you end up with is the typically more educated segments of society reading blogs like this and posting passionate comments, while the offenders “couldn’t care less” about what goes on around them and have no idea they are even morons.

      “Dats normal to hit ya kidz izn’t it?? My daughters Rayleigh and Shiara d-served it right, they interfered wiff my bongs, I was stressed mate, kidz should know dat right??” (Loud door slamming noise, “Kev, where’s me fricking lighter!!!”).

      Reply

    • bec says:

      07:53pm | 04/02/10

      Gee, if only there were some kind of political viewpoint that asserted that people’s ability to be parents wasn’t limited to their gender…

      Reply

    • Sunshine Lolliepops says:

      09:03pm | 04/02/10

      Generally women have boobs and evolved to care for babies so GENERALLY that’s what they are programmed for and that is what BABIES need. Sure there is formula but it’s not the same as having a mother. 50:50 while it might sound equal and what we equate to “fair” like you might cut a piece of cake into two halves to be fair, you shouldn’t attempt to cut children in two halves in the same way. Children aren’t cake, they have needs and one of the major needs is a mother and a father, but look at the mammal kingdom….the mother is the primary carer, often the father isn’t big in the picture. There are crazy scientist that have experimented on the psychological damage to primates of not having a mother…they turned out pretty mental. Just because a man now legally can take away 50% of the parenting from the mother, I think in general a “good father” would not want to interfere in the bond of mother and child and would want the mother of his children to “mother” them, to breastfeed them, and love them as nature intended and to support and be there are much as possible as a positive influence in their lives. Not fighting it out in courts.

      Reply

    • Kate says:

      09:47pm | 07/02/10

      At first my entire response to this was:
      Huh??

      But then I decided to add:
      a) This argument is not about breastfeeding and not exclusively regarding babies, and
      b) No one was saying that children are pieces of cake.

      There’s more and it actually applies to your opinion, but I think it would be wasted.

    • Davido says:

      12:10am | 05/02/10

      The trouble is ‘best interest of the kids’ really translates into the mother getting custody and the father paying for it. That model is great for the 1950’s but hasnt really worked in the last decade or so.

      Personally I think ‘in the best interests of the kids’ should be dropped. It sounds great, but in reality it has been a great big stick to deny one of the parents any rights at all.

      I dont think a kids’ rights should trump yours. All people were created equal were they not? To my mind all the parties should be considered and an optimal solution produced that works.

      Reply

    • Gavin says:

      12:17pm | 05/02/10

      Nah because parents choose to bring their children into the world, children don’t choose to be born. The fact is that we come into existance at the discretion and whim of our parents. They therefore owe us everything they can give - everything. Children’s rights trump those of the parents who had a hand in bringing them into this life.

      Doesn’t mean it’s easy to accept being denied free access.

    • Davido says:

      01:03am | 05/02/10

      Just in case anyone wanted the actual facts. According to the family court website:

      For 2007-08, the figures are as follows: in 17% of litigated cases, the Family Court made orders that the children spend more than 50% of time with their father.

      In the same year, for 60% of litigated cases, the Family Court made orders that the children spend more than 50% of time with their mother.

      From 1994-95 to 2000-01 men never achieved more than 19.9% of residence orders. In the same period, women never achieved LESS than 68.5% of residence orders.

      Reply

    • My kids are best says:

      06:36am | 05/02/10

      My x wife had an affair and then walked out on our family, leaving me to look after the 4 kids(aged 4 to 12). I knew what her game was…. to break me. I quit my job and stayed home to look after the kids. While it was extreamly hard to adjust to the day to day duties of being a full time dad I realised the beauty and wonder of growing kids. I wish I had been doing it all the time. As I didnt break my wife then spent the next 3 years fighting me for the kids. They didnt want to go and didnt like her boy friend. She herself was in a bad state and I told her she needed to settle herself first.
      The court awarded her 5 out of 14 days. I was one of the few lucky ones. My solicitor confirmed that if the roles were reversed I would have seen my kids every 2nd weekend. My kids would have an overwheleming influence by a man they didnt know.
      They did proceed to persecute my oldest girl kicking her out on numerous occasions.
      After 4 years my x had finally settled. I then agreed that a 50 50 set up was possible. Back to the courts but it did happen.Strangley I had to fight her to take all 4.
      I feel it would have been wrong to do this any earlier.
      My kids still have problems with their mother but its getting worked out and they know dad is always there for them.
      I am all for 50 50 but it can take timefor that to become workable for the kids.
      I realise I am one of the very few lucky males in this situation. Women have no better parenting skill than men so sex should never be an issue. The courts need to realise this. Its about the person not the sex of the person.
      I am glad to say my kids remained high achievers in school and I owe that to me. Keeping the same values they always had.
      I love them so much.  Courts need to realise that dads can do that to.

      Reply

    • DG says:

      07:53am | 05/02/10

      I don’t think it is about gender as much as who has performed the primary caregiver functions for for most of the child’s life. In the vast majority of cases this is the woman (if you have any doubt drive past the local primary school at 3pm and see how many men are standing around waiting for their kids compared to the number of women). In that environment it is inevitable that the court will maintain the status quo, and consequently the statistics will show that the father gets less time with his kids. That does not mean that the male would be a bad parent - it simply means that the mother has been doing it for this long the mother will keep doing it.

    • DG says:

      08:18am | 05/02/10

      Sorry, my above post should have been a reply to Davido (@ 02:03am | 05/02/10)

    • Davido says:

      06:18pm | 05/02/10

      DG a lot of people would argue IT IS about gender.

      It is indeed a pragmatic approach to give the primary care giver +50% of custody.

      Personally I would be convinced that gender were not involved if someone could produce statistics showing that custody orders, where both parents worked, were equally divided between the parents.

    • Kathy says:

      07:35am | 05/02/10

      Most parents do think of their kids when a relationship breaks up. These are the families which amicably sort out residential arrangements and don’t end up in the Family Court. Parents who battle out custody disputes in court are already in bitter conflict and their issues are complicated and distressing for everyone. I pity the kids who are the battlefield for their parents’  wars, and the Family Court which has to make a decision which will inevitably anger or disappoint one, or both, of the parents.

      Reply

    • Cuddlyscamphairylegs says:

      07:40pm | 07/02/10

      What a pointless article.

      Any reason you have repeated the first three paragraphs?

      Many of your respondents seemed to have missed the disclaimer in your article…
      “...all parents before the Family Court and any parent who has come to the attention of the Police or community services.”

      So it’s not just about your “average” squabbling parents.

      Reply

    • xBeanie says:

      07:21pm | 08/03/10

      The bit about abusive parents is such a red herring.  Why would you want to give a known offender any unsupervised access to the children?

      The problem is this argument is being used to try and get the laws reversed to where the mother gets almost automatic custody, with the father having to justify every single day of custody.  The intention of the new law is that you start with 50:50 and then each party has to justify any difference in their favour.

      The article is right in saying that the kids’ needs (rather than rights) should be foremost.  Unfortunately many lawyers use the maintenance money as an incentive, along with inherent bitterness to encourage clients to go for full custody because it means time in court and more money for them.

    • concerned parent says:

      10:58pm | 14/03/10

      hi all i am a resident parent my xs partner has being using the court system to control my life for nine years now back in 2004 at every unsupervised visit he would abuse me in front of our son and threaten to kill me because of child support putting it up one dollar he only pays 27.50 a month , he has bashed two of my children who are not his now after nearly three years of not seeing him he has just blown back in and is dragging me through the federal magistrates court again for access i have had two avos my eldest son has had one on him which he breached when he tried to run our child and myself over , yes i think the laws need to be reviewed in cases of violence the problem is the judge don’t read the evidence presented to him on the day he just flick through it and make a decision based on a 2 week parental course what a joke that is has anyone out there heard of a form 4 it is just coming to light in many cases

      Reply

    • Angry mum who should be able to save her own kids says:

      01:02pm | 10/05/10

      i agree with you concerned parent, i myself came out of an abusive relationship but i couldnt take my kids with me, as the father tried to throw me down a flight of stairs with my daughter when she was 5 months old, i saved her, but i lost my sight from running into walls headfirst, punches to my head and even thrown out the front door down a flight of stairs for telling my ex not to put the babies formula down, i got out 2 years i couldnt see my kids for, get into court badluck mum kids have been with dad too long, have access get verbally abused, go back to court dont want to see or hear evidence, kids 3 and 5 come for visits interstate kids dont want to return to there father, due to abuse pushing my son over on his birthday paternal grandmother had to help him up,bruising to sons arm from restraining from the father, and pyschologists think the father is great, kids come to me so sick with cough that they cough so hard they cant breathe, and then they vomit, perfect, my son goes to a school he hates and has no concept of islam and sits by himself, and the court dont want to hear my kids dont want that life, they say kids dont know what they want , why is it my kids plead with me so they dont have to go and i cant help or jail

      Reply

    • JB says:

      03:17pm | 22/05/10

      “the best interests of their child, the community must do so”

      The Family Court, Police and community services neither have the best interests of the children in mind when they make decisions nor do they represent or are accountable to the community at large.

      In particular NSW DoCS is only interested in itself and covering up how it fails children that are in need of intervention (particularly if that intervention is in regards to health and welfare that is of a professional nature beyond the capacity of untrained parents so the parents cannot be blamed).

      Unless police and social services can blame parents, the rights of children in this country mean nothing.

      Furthermore, rather than representing community values and ideals they hide behind secrecy legislation to cover up the fact that, in many cases, they are more interested in themselves than the children.

      DoCS quite happily generates and provides false evidence to courts and to police during joint investigations to cover up the malfeasance. All the agencies that are supposed to ensure government acts with integrity turn a blind eye and refuse to investigate DoCS. After all it is a criminal offense for the media to expose this false evidence so why bother?

      ICAC, the NSW Ombudsman and police all have the power to investigate people who create false evidence during a criminal investigation yet none do when it comes to DoCS. In fact police appear to be a conspirator in this illegal activity. How can they continue to claim to act in the interests of children when they simply lie?

      Reply

    • Hona says:

      06:14pm | 28/06/10

      We have 12 children, 9 male 3 females which has made us prime targets for those government body’s that think they know more about children then we do. All the people they have sent to our house never even had children of their own. Needless to say my wife and I sent them packing with their lies and innuendo and no qualifications. We call our children our 12 degrees, something few academics can lay claim to. otherwise why have we been of so much interests to some of the biggest hospitals in Sydney? We get right what DOC’s and their selective regime can’t even understand as history shows us. We have indigenous issues dating back 200 years we haven’t even tried to fix and now we worry about children and feminists. Our eldest son looks after 2 of Australia’s so called dysfunctional youth as a lifestyle rather than as a job. He loves them knowing that at age 18 DOC’s will remove them from him. It breaks his heart as it does our hearts a consequence of being members of a large family that works and fits today’s relative context in contrary terms. As for the feminist, without a male they have no fight to begin with. For them as it is for the gay community it is about preference rather than human dignity and moral motions. Too much to say with so little data; this is how DOC’s and the system in general works.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 20 May 13 10:07AM

RT @rdhinds: David Warner out for 2 in 5 balls. Now that's a real days work @malcolmconn and @crashcraddock1! #unrealopeners

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 20 May 13 10:05AM

Footy Show apologises for 20 years of irrelevant, boofheadish drivel... in our dreams. But the baby apol is a start http://t.co/oaDfGDMJBh

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 20 May 13 09:53AM

@katedoak Love the 'gay click' reference. Sadly my comment wasn't good enough to be recorded.

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 20 May 13 09:41AM

RT @newscomauHQ: Blackberry. Levis. Sony. @sarahmichael24 reports why brands are cool one minute, and cold the next. | http://t.co/3KJHXkVG…

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter