South East Queensland, In October 2023, the Federal Parliament passed major changes to the way children's cases are decided under the Family Law Act, which will begin the following month.
Among other things, he repealed a controversial legal presumption introduced in 2006. It was held that "equal shared parental responsibility" is in the best interests of the children.
This is true in many cases. But in cases of family violence, the belief that a parent should have equal responsibility for the child can be dangerous. The journey to overcome this assumption has been a long one and filled with countless reviews, inquiries and evaluations .How did it first come into existence and what impact will these legal changes have on children?
laws with inherent problems
The 2006 reforms had their origins in a parliamentary inquiry set up by the Howard government in 2003. Fathers' rights groups led the charge to investigate calls for equal time custody laws. Equal shared parental responsibility refers to a parent's decision-making duties regarding major decisions in a child's life, such as education, religion, and health. Is in. This is different from equal time, which is about where the children actually live. There is often an exchange of children every week.Some kids enjoy it, others feel like they're going to two different emotional places.
Due to the inquiry's origins with fathers' rights groups, the focus was on the same period of time as a starting point. It wasn't about figuring out what really works best for children after family breakdown.
The 2006 reforms did not include the presumption of equal time, but they do include the presumption that equal shared parental responsibility is best for the children. A presumption intended to send a strong message to judges and the legal system.I told a judge that the law says shared parenting is generally a good thing.
Although this is true in some families, it can be a dangerous message for decision makers in families where violence or abuse occurs. Although there were exceptions for family violence or child abuse, the research showed that equal shared parental responsibility orders were made in many cases where there were serious allegations of family violence.
The mandate of equal shared parental responsibility meant that parents had to consult each other about important decisions regarding their children. This works well in some families and ensures that both parents continue to have roles in their children's lives after separation.Where domestic violence has occurred, including coercive control, such an order provides a legal channel for the perpetrator of the abuse to continue it. Shared parental responsibility orders also impact the daily lives of children and their parents. Once a judge makes that order, they have to consider making an order for similar time, or what is called a "substantial and significant time order." This meant that where orders of equal shared responsibility were made for the same amount of time or for a substantial and significant period of time, good was often made.
There was also a new list of factors that the court had to take into account when deciding what was in the best interests of a child.This included the need for "benefit" or "meaningful" post-separation relationships with parents and protection from harm. It can be difficult to reconcile these two things. Review after review
Since 2006, there have been at least six formal inquiries into the family law system, as well as commissioned evaluations and independent research.
Problems with the presumption and dominance of the norm of ongoing "meaningful" relationships are consistently reported, including in the 2012 parliamentary inquiry into family law. That report found that current laws "are leading to unfair outcomes and compromising the protection of children".Most research has shown that victims of family violence are told not to escalate – or feel unable to do so. The desire to restrict or limit the offender's contact with children may be viewed as restrictive rather than protective.
Whereas the Government were reluctant to touch this notion in 2011 when I introduced changes to the Act to improve its response to family violence, this has now ended. Putting the needs of the child at the center
The 2023 changes also repealed the equal and substantially significant time section and simplified the list of best interests factors.
New factors include: the safety of the child and others caring for them
child's thoughts
Their developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs, the ability of each parent to meet these needs
The child benefits from having a relationship with each parent.From a safeguarding perspective, the court should consider any history of family violence abuse or neglect and any family violence orders. Implementation of the amended law will have its own challenges. Despite its flaws, the old laws provided useful guidance about what a court should think about when considering ordering equal (or multiple) time off. A judge may make those orders even after the presumption is revoked.
Older guidance included consideration of parents' ability to implement shared care arrangements and communicate with each other, and the impact of such arrangements on the child.These views, which also influence conversations outside the court, have been removed.
It will be interesting to see whether this will provide an opportunity for judges to develop thoughtful and creative orders tailored to the families they serve, or whether it will simply lead to uncertainty and inconsistency in outcomes. Future reform processes (as there will be many more) Restating the list of factors related to shared parenting orders or arrangements should be considered.
Alternatively, or in addition, there may be a list of factors that prevent caution from such arrangements – such as a history of family violence or abuse or the parents' inability to communicate effectively.
Late last year, Shadow Attorney-General Michaelia Cash said the changes "send a message to the courts that Parliament no longer considers it beneficial for bot parents to be involved in decisions about their children's lives" and the coalition. It will be repealed under the government.His concerns are not included in the law. Nothing in these new laws diminishes the importance of both parents.
The Government has listened to and acted upon the concerns that have been expressed over many years about security. Now we must wait to see how they actually work.(talk) GSP
Among other things, he repealed a controversial legal presumption introduced in 2006. It was held that "equal shared parental responsibility" is in the best interests of the children.
This is true in many cases. But in cases of family violence, the belief that a parent should have equal responsibility for the child can be dangerous. The journey to overcome this assumption has been a long one and filled with countless reviews, inquiries and evaluations .How did it first come into existence and what impact will these legal changes have on children?
laws with inherent problems
The 2006 reforms had their origins in a parliamentary inquiry set up by the Howard government in 2003. Fathers' rights groups led the charge to investigate calls for equal time custody laws. Equal shared parental responsibility refers to a parent's decision-making duties regarding major decisions in a child's life, such as education, religion, and health. Is in. This is different from equal time, which is about where the children actually live. There is often an exchange of children every week.Some kids enjoy it, others feel like they're going to two different emotional places.
Due to the inquiry's origins with fathers' rights groups, the focus was on the same period of time as a starting point. It wasn't about figuring out what really works best for children after family breakdown.
The 2006 reforms did not include the presumption of equal time, but they do include the presumption that equal shared parental responsibility is best for the children. A presumption intended to send a strong message to judges and the legal system.I told a judge that the law says shared parenting is generally a good thing.
Although this is true in some families, it can be a dangerous message for decision makers in families where violence or abuse occurs. Although there were exceptions for family violence or child abuse, the research showed that equal shared parental responsibility orders were made in many cases where there were serious allegations of family violence.
The mandate of equal shared parental responsibility meant that parents had to consult each other about important decisions regarding their children. This works well in some families and ensures that both parents continue to have roles in their children's lives after separation.Where domestic violence has occurred, including coercive control, such an order provides a legal channel for the perpetrator of the abuse to continue it. Shared parental responsibility orders also impact the daily lives of children and their parents. Once a judge makes that order, they have to consider making an order for similar time, or what is called a "substantial and significant time order." This meant that where orders of equal shared responsibility were made for the same amount of time or for a substantial and significant period of time, good was often made.
There was also a new list of factors that the court had to take into account when deciding what was in the best interests of a child.This included the need for "benefit" or "meaningful" post-separation relationships with parents and protection from harm. It can be difficult to reconcile these two things. Review after review
Since 2006, there have been at least six formal inquiries into the family law system, as well as commissioned evaluations and independent research.
Problems with the presumption and dominance of the norm of ongoing "meaningful" relationships are consistently reported, including in the 2012 parliamentary inquiry into family law. That report found that current laws "are leading to unfair outcomes and compromising the protection of children".Most research has shown that victims of family violence are told not to escalate – or feel unable to do so. The desire to restrict or limit the offender's contact with children may be viewed as restrictive rather than protective.
Whereas the Government were reluctant to touch this notion in 2011 when I introduced changes to the Act to improve its response to family violence, this has now ended. Putting the needs of the child at the center
The 2023 changes also repealed the equal and substantially significant time section and simplified the list of best interests factors.
New factors include: the safety of the child and others caring for them
child's thoughts
Their developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs, the ability of each parent to meet these needs
The child benefits from having a relationship with each parent.From a safeguarding perspective, the court should consider any history of family violence abuse or neglect and any family violence orders. Implementation of the amended law will have its own challenges. Despite its flaws, the old laws provided useful guidance about what a court should think about when considering ordering equal (or multiple) time off. A judge may make those orders even after the presumption is revoked.
Older guidance included consideration of parents' ability to implement shared care arrangements and communicate with each other, and the impact of such arrangements on the child.These views, which also influence conversations outside the court, have been removed.
It will be interesting to see whether this will provide an opportunity for judges to develop thoughtful and creative orders tailored to the families they serve, or whether it will simply lead to uncertainty and inconsistency in outcomes. Future reform processes (as there will be many more) Restating the list of factors related to shared parenting orders or arrangements should be considered.
Alternatively, or in addition, there may be a list of factors that prevent caution from such arrangements – such as a history of family violence or abuse or the parents' inability to communicate effectively.
Late last year, Shadow Attorney-General Michaelia Cash said the changes "send a message to the courts that Parliament no longer considers it beneficial for bot parents to be involved in decisions about their children's lives" and the coalition. It will be repealed under the government.His concerns are not included in the law. Nothing in these new laws diminishes the importance of both parents.
The Government has listened to and acted upon the concerns that have been expressed over many years about security. Now we must wait to see how they actually work.(talk) GSP
