Aniko,

Your altruism and egalitarianism are admirable. It must feel quite wonderful at the end of the day, to know you represented a child’s best interests.

If only fathers would surrender their homes and pay, and be content on being on call to baby-sit whenever required, there’d be no need for a boxing ring - you could be doing something less adversarial such as conveyancing.

Seeker

I wouldn't judge Aniko too harshly, too quickly.
After all, solicitors interpret their job as "getting the best deal possible for their client". Some let the client choose the path of action and service that choice professionally - but others do suggest some diabolical methods to gain a legal advantage - such as trumped up AVOs.

Aniko is also right that often "The parties are itching for a battle" and " the children come last or are used to justify almost any act, fair or not".

But I don't think it is valid to say that " People who really put their needs last and their kids needs first, are not caught up in this dispute in the first place."

Many times one person is prepared to settle equitably and the other makes unreasonable demands, or refuses one parent access to the kids. The action of the one can force the other into a big sh.t fight that snow balls into adversarial war.

The problem is that relationship break-ups do not belong in the law courts. And a system that is unbalanced and empowers one gender over another provides a formula for adversarial action.

So we CAN partly blame the system, particularly if we view the big picture - that is not, just the solicitors - but policy makers, gender separatists ideologies, weak marriage law, CSA etc. etc. It all empowers the vindictive types with incentive to take as much as possible and to inflict revenge for the failed relationship.

These inequities make it more difficult to "reach an agreement yoursel[f]".

Aniko, what do you think of the governments plan for 63 relationship centres across Australia.

Do you think that it will simply be another step to bypass on the way to the court?

What advice are solicitors likely to give their clients in regard to the centres? - given that their job is to get the best deal for their client.

My opinion is, if they are not gender bias they may reduce the numbers that go to court - if gender blind, they will waste taxpayers money.

I had to laugh at the comments-and the assumption that I act against men. I unfortunately act for parents who have precisely the type of former partners that are complained of - totally vindictive, manipulate loving children into ones who deny their own parent, deny contact and trump up avos. And no, the system is not always fair there. But, then I also act for parents, who gripe when contact is arranged and call it 'babysitting' or when I try and get my client to seek an avo (after coming into my office with a black eye) and they are too scared to go to the Police.

When I get the client who wants to manipulate and objects to contact for no really good reason - I tell them its not on. I do not agree to send letters which I strongly disagree with,and usually it stops right there. In fact, I have been accused of allowing parental abuse in order to ensure contact with kids happens. But 'abuse' is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

The bottom line is that - that its pretty easy to lie and manipulate and until ESP is invented or there are contact police - people who are vindictive or lie are as difficult to regulate and control as are criminals. At best you get some, but some always get away.

I have acted for people who, despite all the provocation etc, thinks of the child and says nothing- why, because no matter what happens, kids usually love their parents and it affects them to hear one parent say anything bad about the other. I have kids who after 8 years of fighting in and out of court, avo's, assualts, breaches etc still say when asked 'what do you wish for ?" the reply is " mum and dad to like each other again..

Notice I rarely say which gender I speak of-it comes from both sides. I notice assumptions being made as to which gender I speak of. And, yes, where one parent compromises or even capitulates, for the sake of peace and for their child; or who make huge lifestyle changes - ARE putting the child's best interest first.

I am all for relationship centres. If they operate so that people can get counselling and learn about being separated parents; Where people learn to cope with grief and loss; Where parents learn to adapt to the new situation and resolve issues without yelling and abuse - then brilliant. Counselling and life skills before seeing a lawyer is a great idea. I just hope that the centres are funded and client's are not a waiting list for weeks to see very busy counsellors and mediators, whilst the angst and emotions stew into nastiness and entrenched positions.

When people who just want to get at their other partner, then all the relationship centres in the world won't help. There are the entrenched 'boxing ring' champs, that no system can fix or repair. And, I use the 'boxing analogy' when you have the entrenched positions. I am always happy when after a bit of advice and thought - with compromise on both sides, neither side wins or loses, but reach a settlement and it never goes to Court. Sometimes it involves more compromise on one side than the other, but in the long run, both parents can get on with their lives and concentrate on being parents to their children.

Thanks Aniko,

I never tried to imply that you only act for men, and from your words you definitely don't appear to have a gender blind spot.

These a lot of sense in what you say.

You said "When I get the client who wants to manipulate and objects to contact for no really good reason - I tell them its not on." Your words convey a lot of decency and professionalism. Unfortunately not all solicitors act the same way - perhaps these are a minority.

I agree that the relationship centres won't work if one or both parents are committed to revenge.

Ultimately a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting enshrined in law would help parent/child alienation and be far cheaper than the relationship centres.

Often this issue is though of as only a concern for fathers, but there are many mothers in that don't have residency - and my conversations with them reveal that some experience similar obstacles to the fathers for continued contact, and CSA debt.

Do you care to comment on your position on shared parenting?
Have any of your clients settled on shared parenting?

aniko, thanks for your great posts. There is a question I have raised on a number of occasions and never had a reply to, one that relates to your post.

Do you know why "lie detection" equipment is not used in court proceedings? Popular commentary puts the accuracy in the high 90's percent wise, operators claim that they can generally spot the tricks used to fool the equipment. Not bombproof but it has to be better than nothing.

Unless there are really good reasons to not use it I would like to see it used on all testimony both on the witness and the lawyer asking the questions (might be a way of spotting the trick questions - the more sophisticated versions of "do you still beat your wife?")

The fear of being caught out might be enough to stop many of the false claims and dishonest testimony.

R0bert