- Parents need to be sure of bias-free custody rulings
- By Editorial
- The Age
- 25/03/2009 Make a Comment (4)
- Contributed by: BigJoe ( 9 articles in 2009 )
WHEN families break up, children can be caught in the crossfire between parents. It is an intensely difficult situation, one that defies formulaic answers. When parents cannot reach agreement, it falls to the Family Court to hear contested cases and rule on highly emotional matters such as custody of the children. Changes to family law in 2006 moved towards a presumption of shared parental responsibility and an obligation on the court to consider equal parenting time when in a child's best interests. Despite that, analysis of 1450 cases finalised in 2007-08 shows a mere 15 per cent of custody battles resulted in 50-50 parenting. Only 17 per cent of fathers were granted the majority of time with their children (against 60 per cent of mothers) and 14 per cent were granted between 30 and 45 per cent of time.
Parents need to be sure of bias-free custody rulings
On the face of it, the figures suggest a continuing bias against fathers — although even among parents who reach their own agreements, only 19 per cent are 50-50 arrangements. The courts may believe it is not in children's best interests to divide time between warring households. However, another 2006 reform moved away from traditional adversarial hearings to a conference-style process, with participants reporting much less post-divorce acrimony. In comparative trials, the children emerged happier from the new process and fathers reported significantly more contact. Only 18 per cent rarely or never had overnight care, against 30 per cent in the old system. Even so, a significant number of fathers and children will suffer some disaffection from being separated.
It is important for children to have, if circumstances permit, a continuing good relationship with both parents. The Family Court should not be above examination to ensure any trace of institutional bias against fathers has not persisted regardless of the effects of its own reforms.
Source: Airport brawl: one person dead, many lives at risk
https://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/airport-brawl-one-person-dead-many-lives-at-risk-20090324-98z0.html?page=-1
I REFER to your editorial (25/3) "Parents need to be sure of bias-free custody rulings". I support the view that parents and the public need to be sure of "bias-free custody rulings".
You say: "The Family Court should not be above examination to ensure any trace of institutional bias against fathers has not persisted regardless of the effects of its own reforms." While I don't accept there was institutional bias against fathers, the court is not and should not be above examination.
It was my decision to collect and publish the data on the outcome of proceedings because I believe it is important the public knows what kind of orders are being made. I anticipated it might be misunderstood and used to criticise the court but that is a price I was willing to pay for transparency.
The more successful we are at persuading parents that it is in the interests of their children to resolve matters amicably out of court, then the more difficult will be the cases that come to court. Understanding this gives some idea of why, in those cases, it is unlikely an order for shared time will be in the interests of children. It is not "despite" but "because of" the children's best interests being paramount that of 1450 cases finalised, only 15 per cent resulted in 50-50 parenting arrangements.
My actions in the publication of all judgements (available on AustLii) and the publication of this data speaks for itself.
Diana Bryant, Chief Justice, Family Court, Melbourne
Source: https://www.theage.com.au/opinion/letters/palliative-care-delays-inevitable-20090326-9c5k.html?page=-1
Parents need to be sure of bias-free custody rulings
On the face of it, the figures suggest a continuing bias against fathers — although even among parents who reach their own agreements, only 19 per cent are 50-50 arrangements. The courts may believe it is not in children's best interests to divide time between warring households. However, another 2006 reform moved away from traditional adversarial hearings to a conference-style process, with participants reporting much less post-divorce acrimony. In comparative trials, the children emerged happier from the new process and fathers reported significantly more contact. Only 18 per cent rarely or never had overnight care, against 30 per cent in the old system. Even so, a significant number of fathers and children will suffer some disaffection from being separated.
It is important for children to have, if circumstances permit, a continuing good relationship with both parents. The Family Court should not be above examination to ensure any trace of institutional bias against fathers has not persisted regardless of the effects of its own reforms.
Source: Airport brawl: one person dead, many lives at risk
https://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/airport-brawl-one-person-dead-many-lives-at-risk-20090324-98z0.html?page=-1
Committed to transparency
Response from CJ BryantI REFER to your editorial (25/3) "Parents need to be sure of bias-free custody rulings". I support the view that parents and the public need to be sure of "bias-free custody rulings".
You say: "The Family Court should not be above examination to ensure any trace of institutional bias against fathers has not persisted regardless of the effects of its own reforms." While I don't accept there was institutional bias against fathers, the court is not and should not be above examination.
It was my decision to collect and publish the data on the outcome of proceedings because I believe it is important the public knows what kind of orders are being made. I anticipated it might be misunderstood and used to criticise the court but that is a price I was willing to pay for transparency.
The more successful we are at persuading parents that it is in the interests of their children to resolve matters amicably out of court, then the more difficult will be the cases that come to court. Understanding this gives some idea of why, in those cases, it is unlikely an order for shared time will be in the interests of children. It is not "despite" but "because of" the children's best interests being paramount that of 1450 cases finalised, only 15 per cent resulted in 50-50 parenting arrangements.
My actions in the publication of all judgements (available on AustLii) and the publication of this data speaks for itself.
Diana Bryant, Chief Justice, Family Court, Melbourne
Source: https://www.theage.com.au/opinion/letters/palliative-care-delays-inevitable-20090326-9c5k.html?page=-1
Typical family lawyer scum trying to drum up business.
Call him up and ask him for an initial consulation and get his views on shared parenting. Ask him to refer you to all the research that demonstrates that sole custody is in the best interests of children - there is no such research. All the research tells us that children do much better with the involvement of both parents post separation, regardless of what the family law tossers say - I mean - these people pray on vulnerable people and destroy families and children for money and profit.
They are officers of the Court and therefore you cannot beleive anything that the head judge (officer) of the Family Court says. These are evil people.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/24/2524641.htm
FAMILY LAWYERS DESTROY FAMILIES FOR PROFIT
."While I don't accept there was institutional bias against fathers, the court is not and should not be above examination..."
Of course there is institutional bias against fathers. That is apparent. If there was no bias and parents were treated equally, custody disputes and litigation would fall off significantly.
Have a look at the disgraceful comments from this so called OFFICER OF THE COURT, FAMILY LAWYER, DAVID SCHETZER, LAW INSTITUTE OF VICTORIA:
In 17 per cent of cases, the Family Court made orders that the children spend more than 50 per cent of time with their father.
David Schetzer from the Law Institute of Victoria says in many cases equal custody is not what is best for the children.
"I think simplistically if you were to ask yourself would you be prepared or would like to live in one house for seven days of the week and another house for another seven days of the next week you might very well conclude that that is not in your best interests," he said.
He says it was unnecessary to introduce laws relating to equal parenting arrangements in child custody disputes.
THIS MAN IS A PROVOCATIVE ARSEHOLE AND SHOULD BE DRIVEN OUT OF BUSINESS!
How crap is this?
So this effectively still tells mothers if you're not happy with 50% out of court, you must go to court to get more time and money (as per the old days)
So nothing has changed!!!
The lawyers and courts still get your money!
Children still lose a father!
It's still a sham today, as it has been since 1975, where children miss out on the benefits of having good, decent, loving and strong fathers in their lives, to help guide and support them throughout life's tribulations.
It must now be clear, yet again, to the public that politicians, and their pitiful antics and attempts to deceive the public into thinking things will get better with their magical legislation is just smoke and mirrors trickery.
Or if it's not the fault of the politicians, but rather the judiciary and lawyers that are not adhering to the legislation, well those who are wicked need to be fined and/or put in jail!
Men and the public need to wake up at the rate of 10 men per hour, and twice as fast on weekends, as to what's going on with the decimation of families, else there will be no such thing as the family unit (as we know it today), in the years to come.
What will your children do then?
Committed to Justice!!
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