Robert ~ "Again drifting back to discussing who does more which is I believe a distraction from the real issue of protecting kid's".
I agree entirely, so can we get back to discussing how children can be effectively protected by the Family Law and in its implementation in the Courts, rather than the gender issues which you and others keep bringing into this debate. I have only ever responded to such issues about DV when they have been raised by others, but to me they are a complete irrelevance.
I believe that the proposed legislation will go some way towards protecting children and young people as is their primary right under the UN CRoC and also that they will have the right to be heard in such proceedings. These rights of children must become the over-riding and paramount consideration by Family Courts. I cannot however see this happening while Family Courts do not have the powers or expertise to implement these changes and to competently investigate allegations of child abuse, nor the powers to order child protection authorities to carry out their statutory duties. It is this gross anomaly in the system which urgently needs fixing, as it is the gap between the Federal and the State laws and systems which are seriously at fault.
Can we now leave the gender issues aside and concentrate on the care, welfare, and safety of children?.

Chazp & Robert

You may want to tune into Radio National's Background Briefing:

50-50 Parenting

"Legislation before the Senate now may take some of the heat out of tragic confusion over shared, or "equal time parenting", and the role of violence in Family Law decision making. Research shows children of high conflict families, forced into equal time, are suffering."

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2011/3278027.htm

Then have a courteous discussion.

Thank you.

How can kid's be better protected?

I think the most effective things we can do are around reducing as far as possible the pressures on both parents following separation.

Factors such as a sense of loss of control over your own life, poverty etc are big factors which can contribute to harm to children (intentional and unintentional).

- Take as much of the pressure off initial child residency outcomes as possible. Eg the long term opportunities to have a meaningful role in children's lives and financial prospects of the parents should not be significantly impacted due to the residency arrangements following separation. That gives less incentive for either parents to fight over initial arrangements and work towards better outcomes.
- Put in place fair and sensible investigation processes within the general child protection services. If a parent poses a significant risk to a child then they are a risk in or out of a relationship with the other parent.
- Put in place measures so that unsubstantiated allegations don't disadvantage the accused or benefit the accuser (and visa versa).
- Put in place a process to review court decisions some time later (three years after the decision) and see what's worked and what has not - eg the courts should learn from what they got right and from what they did wrong. They will make mistakes at times, not learning from those mistakes compounds the issue.
- As far as possible let both parents move on. CSA keeps parents tied together financially adding a significant trigger for ongoing conflict. It's hard enough to parent together following separation without constant financial conflict.

R0bert

Robert

What you have written sounds fine on paper - as do most good intentions. What do you suggest when a baby is still being breasfed and the father demands equal time? An example of this was broadcast on BB.

Or there has been no history of violence from either partner, but one partner is very controlling and manipulating - the other partner knows this cannot prove anything and the children suffer greatly as a result?

Unfortunately we cannot legislate for bad behaviour, that this minority of parents reach the courts mean their negotiating skills are poor anyway and the 50/50 set-up sounds more difficult to implement than just staying married. Let alone what the arrangement does to the stability of children's lives.

I wish there was an answer, but of course, there is no one size fits all answer. People muddying an already fraught system with false claims simply because they feel disempowered is not placing children's best interest at heart - these people are about revenge and little else.

Ammonite, I hope that by reducing the stakes around residency at seperation the pressures on parents would lead to better choices.

There is a case where young infants are involved for prime care to be with the person able to produce breast milk (assuming that they are in fact breast feeding the infant). By tying long term residency and the short term division of assets to the short term needs of the child can be very harmful.

If the difference between breast milk and formula milk for an infant was potentially going to cost you almost any chance of ever having a day to day parenting role with that child and possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars a lot of people might decide that formula milk was not so bad.

I don't know what the system can do about overly controlling people. I suspect that they will be the sort who are more likely to play the system so basing residency decisions on unproven behaviors could often lead to the person with the problem getting the residency.

I do have a few assumptions for all this.
- we can't totally remove risk to children. We can reduce it but not remove it.
- it's important to minimise the harm done by government (and it's functionaries). Trying to overdo the protection aspect for kid's by operating without evidence or out of context will do far greater harm than doing less.
- Whatever we do in child protection for seperated families should be the same things we do to protect kid's in intact families. If it's good enough cause to remove kid's from a parent when the parents are apart it should be good enough to remove them when the parents are together.
- The lives of parents are not inherently less valuable than those of children. Kid's have less opportunities to alter their situation than their parents but the extreme end of the "think of the children" crowd seems to think anything done to a parent for the childs well being is somehow Ok regardless of the difference in impact.

R0bert

Robert

Thanks for your reply.

Just a couple of points:

1. Expressing breast milk is not the same as turning on a tap - and is an additional stress especially if trying to meet with the juggling act that is a 50/50 custody split over a little baby. How does one store enough milk for 3 and half days per week? Why should a baby have to have formula if the mother is producing plenty of milk?

Which brings me to your last point:

2. Children are not like vehicles and be parked in any garage at the whim of a parent. A parent who truly loves their child may (and many do) see less of their child in order for that child to have greater stability in their crucial growing years. Children only get one chance at growing up. Adults who put their needs before that of their children.... well I have words for people like that, but I am too polite to write them here.