- Call for Family Court power to bypass parents
- By Carol Nader
- The Age
- 25/03/2009 Make a Comment (3)
- Contributed by: MrNatural ( 10 articles in 2009 )
THE Family Court should have the power to place children at serious risk of harm in the care of the state, instead of a parent, according to the court's chief justice.
In an interview with The Age, Chief Justice Diana Bryant said the Family Court often dealt with separating couples with children who were already well known to child protection authorities. But if a judge had concerns about a child's welfare, he or she could not make an order that the child be placed in the care of the state, such as foster care.
"I think there is real benefit in giving the Family Court some greater powers so that you can require intervention, and which would also enable the court in some cases to make an order to put a child into care when the options before the court were otherwise unsatisfactory," she said.
"I think it is a public debate that we ought to be having. It is important and it's difficult in a federal system to sometimes get these things right."
The Federal Government is currently exploring the idea as part of a range of options to better protect children.
Family Court information released this week shows that some of the main reasons parents are granted little or no time with their children include mental health issues, family violence and abuse, and substance abuse. These are also some of the main reasons why children are removed from the care of their parents.
A number of family law experts have been calling for the Family Court's powers to be enhanced for several years, amid fears that children are being bounced around the system - and slipping through the cracks.
In December last year, federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland told The Age that Family Court judges were sometimes forced to award parental access and residence to "the least worst option" because legally they did not have alternatives. It was "not uncommon for both parents to be effectively dysfunctional".
Yesterday, his spokesman said he would discuss the issue with his state counterparts. "I am currently exploring how the courts can better protect the welfare of children and improve outcomes for them in a range of areas," he said.
But such a change would be constitutionally complicated. The Family Court is under the Federal Government's jurisdiction and child protection is run by the states. It may require the Federal Government to take over child protection or relinquish the Family Court to the states.
The way the system works now, judges in the Family Court can ask but not compel state welfare departments to intervene if the court believes a child is at risk of abuse or neglect.
Justice Bryant said Australia was one of the few countries in the Western world that did not permit the Family Court to deal with both child welfare and parental disputes.
"Many other countries are astonished to hear that we have such a dichotomy between our two systems," she said.
Former Family Court chief justice Alastair Nicholson said yesterday that all courts that dealt with children should be able to make child protection orders , particularly the Family Court.
"Inevitably there are situations where you are making a least-worst order, and the reality is there are cases where the child should be under protection," he said. "We really should have a national child protection system and a national way of working in relation to children."
In an interview with The Age, Chief Justice Diana Bryant said the Family Court often dealt with separating couples with children who were already well known to child protection authorities. But if a judge had concerns about a child's welfare, he or she could not make an order that the child be placed in the care of the state, such as foster care.
"I think there is real benefit in giving the Family Court some greater powers so that you can require intervention, and which would also enable the court in some cases to make an order to put a child into care when the options before the court were otherwise unsatisfactory," she said.
"I think it is a public debate that we ought to be having. It is important and it's difficult in a federal system to sometimes get these things right."
The Federal Government is currently exploring the idea as part of a range of options to better protect children.
Family Court information released this week shows that some of the main reasons parents are granted little or no time with their children include mental health issues, family violence and abuse, and substance abuse. These are also some of the main reasons why children are removed from the care of their parents.
A number of family law experts have been calling for the Family Court's powers to be enhanced for several years, amid fears that children are being bounced around the system - and slipping through the cracks.
In December last year, federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland told The Age that Family Court judges were sometimes forced to award parental access and residence to "the least worst option" because legally they did not have alternatives. It was "not uncommon for both parents to be effectively dysfunctional".
Yesterday, his spokesman said he would discuss the issue with his state counterparts. "I am currently exploring how the courts can better protect the welfare of children and improve outcomes for them in a range of areas," he said.
But such a change would be constitutionally complicated. The Family Court is under the Federal Government's jurisdiction and child protection is run by the states. It may require the Federal Government to take over child protection or relinquish the Family Court to the states.
The way the system works now, judges in the Family Court can ask but not compel state welfare departments to intervene if the court believes a child is at risk of abuse or neglect.
Justice Bryant said Australia was one of the few countries in the Western world that did not permit the Family Court to deal with both child welfare and parental disputes.
"Many other countries are astonished to hear that we have such a dichotomy between our two systems," she said.
Former Family Court chief justice Alastair Nicholson said yesterday that all courts that dealt with children should be able to make child protection orders , particularly the Family Court.
"Inevitably there are situations where you are making a least-worst order, and the reality is there are cases where the child should be under protection," he said. "We really should have a national child protection system and a national way of working in relation to children."
Source: https://www.theage.com.au/national/call-for-family-court-power-to-bypass-parents-20090324-98xx.html?page=-1
This is excatly what Dr Stephen Baskerville talks about and it is exactly what the United Nations is trying to do.
Alaistar Nicholson, Scotch College educated, probably abused in the bording house, would not know shit from clay when it came to a loving parent child relationship. He will go down as one of the biggest human rights abusers in history for his role in separating children from parents. He should walk into the bush and fall down a mine shaft.
Interestingly, with my own indigenous, the state will actually place the children with bilogical relatives, such as grand parents, in preference to foster carers or institutions. No such treatment for white man.
It really is the start of the end. We need to re-build family principles.
As for your short list ... can i suggest you add taking Alastair Nicholson into the middle of the bay and sink the boat?
Hell I bet he wished somebody had got rid of his parents when he was a kid.
Close the family court (its actually anti family). Get rid of these academic imbeciles that continue to concoct useless remedies.
Remove immunity from judges (especially family court) and pass legislation for the protection of the family (written by everyday Australian's (lawyers to be banned from submitting suggestions).
Naturally i have other much more efficient remedies but the guillotine has been banned :)
The only way to better protect children Carol Nader is:
1) STOP stealing children away from parents and families
2) Strengthen families
3) Promote the benefits of keeping families together wherever possible
4) Educate families:
a) including how to better manage their finances like the wealthy do;
b) preventing useless rubbish from going into children's minds from the media, advertising and public education
5) Keep away any form of external intervention that promotes division and destruction of families
ie. lawyers, Family Court, courts, Dept. Human Services, police and any person who is anti-family
6) Tearing up anti-family legislation and laws
7) Increase the number of intelligent and productive services that help families
This list is in no way conclusive but it's a start!
1Will not be visible to public.
2Receive notification of other comments posted for this article. To cease notification after having posted click here.
3To make a link clickable in the comments box enclose in link tags - ie.<link>Link</link>.
4To show an image enclose the image URL in tags - ie.. Note: image may be resized if too large
To further have your say, head to our forum Click Here
To contribute a news article Click Here
To view or contribute a Quote Click Here