I fully support advances in the Family Law and Shared Parenting arrangements.

I do however have some doubts in regards to this story.

1. '$400 million will be spent in setting up 65 family relationship centres'
How much will be spent maintaining and staffing them?

2. Who will staff them?
With what qualifications and experience in areas of domestic violence, mens health, family support services, etc.

3.'If enacted, funded and supported by community education, it will bring enormous benefits to mothers, fathers and children.' Who is going to fund it? The 'community'?, does that mean not-for-profit organisations, like 'Angli-care' etc.
Is this just another cop out by the government to place responsibility back on the "community' and untrained volunteers?

4. Finally the terminology used, ie 'brayings of feminist groups' and 'aspirations of right-thinking men and women' reveals to me a certain 'patriarcal ideology'

My parents divorced when I was 2. When I was 8 years old the court ruled that I would be under shared parenting, and I have been the better for it. Nothing can replace not only having, but knowing, and growing up with my mother AND my father- despite the fact that they have (since I was 2) always lived at least 4 hrs flight from one another.

With exceptions of course (in the case of abuse/inability to properly care for the child), this whole "a child only needs a constant mum and a holiday dad" thing is ridiculous. Bring on the shared responsibility!

Coming from a broken home, I think I have some expertise in understanding the positives/negatives to shared or otherwise parenting.

As written, opposition to shared parenting, in a nutshell claims:
- Single-parent (see mother) situations promote ‘stability’(NACLC)
- Mediation is dangerous in some separation circumstances (lawyer groups)
- Redistribution of resources is ineffective as women are ‘overborne’ in negotiation (feminist groups)

Of these the first is simply incorrect. As the writer suggests, stability in relationships is more important to children that place of abode. Perhaps in days gone by the cost of two rooms was prohibitive and left children wanting in the basics (a bed instead of a mattress on the floor) but for every child’s wish to have things of comfort, I can attest to a greater desire for the company and guidance of a good parent meaning more.

The second two platforms have some merit. In cases, one or the other spouse (not always men) have too much anger, instability of personality or even depression to warrant a shared environment. This then usually ties in with the difficulties in negotiation of resource sharing. If one party is weak or unreasonable, inequity is likely.

However, it should be the first hope of all people that a child has access to both parents. Not because of gender issues (needing both male and female role models) but because of the chance that the loss could damage the child with the cutting of a strong bond with one of their parents.

With regard to the aim of negotiating shared responsibility, there comes the availability of mediation. As long as the assistance is impartial (unlike current adversarial models) and capable of monitoring both interests, to ensure even-handed results, who – other than lawyers – could argue?

Generally the proposal, in it’s infant state, seems more likely to benefit the child than the current regime. And that must be seen as good for all.

That the author is a mediator by profession should not be overlooked. Perhaps a second opinion from a non-interested professional would be appropriate...

Nice to see we can agree Yng...

Love the article and the concepts behind it.

I have to admit to a very high level of scepticism about the likelyhood of it working though.

My experience with Relationships Australia has left me with the very strong impression that many in the mediation field are so tied in to the entrenced bias that they don't see it.

Likewise while residency is tied to welfare and child support regardless of how the residency is obtained some will never accept shared parenting which costs them money.

Simply cut all financial support to parents who refuse to cooperate with shared parenting arrangements which share the costs and benefits of parenting between the parents and much of the problem will be fixed. There are already provisions in place to deal with the child abuse so no excuse there. I include moving too far away from the area where the family formerly lived to do shared parenting in the category of refusing to cooperate with shared parenting.

Of course shared parenting makes it much harder for parents to do a clean out during the property settlement and places responsibility on both parents to care for and finacially support their child, not an outcome that some like much.

R0bert

Following the breakdown of my marriage I rented a house close to the old family home which the Ex got. I stayed within walking distance of my girls and eventually bought a house, within walking distance between the home and school.

My girls were better parented and have grown into well balanced adults due to the benefits of the direct interaction with both the Ex and I than had there been just one of us in their lives.

Robert agree – the $$ do get in the way. That is just another challenge and best if it can be separated from custody (how is the tough one). My experience is not current but past in terms of custodial permissions etc, obviously the relationship with the girls is strong and ongoing. Had I had a choice, obviously I would have rather not gone through it all but having done so leaves me convinced from the experience that Children need / are entitled to the companionship, mentoring, guidance, interaction, inspiration, love and comfort of both parents, not one.

As YngNLuvnIt and Reason suggested from their experiences and I would confirm from mine. The law should support the ideal of equality of parenting and work from an assumption that Children require and are best served, developmentally, from the ongoing interaction with both parents, whenever and wherever possible

I am so glad to see the end of feminist tyranny finally emerging. We have seen women claiming equality but refusing to take it up for years now, it seems obvious to me that a women is not exactly the same as a man, all that equality should mean (without it losing it meaning) is equality before the law. And men have had none of that for years now. Laws should be revoked if they refer to either sex.

I would also point out that the gender issues which one of the posters pointed out as not being his/her concern, are an integral part of psychologies assessment of many disorders (where the child lacked either parent as a gender role model). this is accepted by all who are not influenced by feminism.

I too am from a broken family although I do not think that this places me in any better position to comment, one experience aint worth much compared to a statistical analysis of all experiences, just as a filter to understand the debate.

I just hope that these new relationship centres (not the ones the article talks about) that provide training pre-marriage into what to expect in a marriage and how to raise kids acceptably (something totally lost to most of the population in reletivist australia (my ways as good as yours)) are made mandatory for a legal union or marriage to have the legal benifits of inheritance, divorce rights etc. Its time people were taught how to take responsibility for their actions again.

Witness the two 14 yearold murdering girls, why not halve thier sentence and make the parents do the other half. all delinquency would soon stop then, as people have been saying for some time now!