I am in the midst of a custody dispute over my 18 month old daughter. Her father is an alcoholic and has compromised her safety on a number of occasions. We have been separated for 5 months. He has access to her 3 days of 6 hours (no overnight contact at this point in time). The hostility is enormous between us. He leaves her to sleep in a room at his place of business unsupervised whilst he goes off and works. I need more information and am finding the system is really letting us down. I want her to have contact with him but I believe it should be relative to his behaviour. There are orders from the court that he is not to drink prior to or during access with his daughter and he is not to take her into public bars. There is no clear definition on how to enforce the orders. I have had to take her away from him a few occasions because of his drinking. More legal letters, him stating he had a cold? I told him he could have his daughter if he attended the local police station - if he was ok he could take her. He refused. I dont believe shared custody is appropriate in all circumstances. His addiction causes him to have impaired judgement and make poor decisions that could ultimately have serious outcomes.

Dear System,
I certainly feel for your situation, but can do little about it specifically. Be strong.. couragous and steadfast.

I'm wondering though, did you not know about the habits of this man from early on ? Did you join with him in the creation of a child thinking

a) I can change him.
b) He isn't that bad.
c) you fill in the blank.

I feel you are quite justified in your concerns over his behavior and access. The courts apparently take a different 'legal' view though?

Perhaps the more important lesson here is our overall social values which permit us to enter into relationships which are ultimately destructive for all concerned.

It grieves me that we have become very open in our relationships where we don't seem to look for the most important value in a person we create a life with. For me that is a loving relationship with God. Looking back, I know how much strength that has mean't for me in lifes difficult times, and how much joy it has given me during the happier times.

It seems we have just gone along our merry ways, and just acted without much big picture reference, and suddenly when we feel or experience negative consequences for our lack of enduring values, only then do we realize how much we have missed.

For those who don't realize, they will just go on, and on, and on in a cycle of trying to pick ourselves up by our shoelaces.

On your assertion that 50/50 shared custody is not always good? I totally agree. What is left for you know, is to either go with the system, or.. lobby somehow to get some support and try to change it such that behavior IS a factor.

This reminds me very much of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act which says that 'Motive is not a consideration' in matters of religious vilification. How silly. I am doing all I can to change that, including public activism. I can share some insights of ways to publicize your cause if you like.

systemfailure, I'm in complete agreement that 50/50 shared custody is not appropriate in all circumstances. Just as parenting is not appropriate in all circumstances. We have provision within the law for children to be removed from situations considered dangerous to the child.

There are also clearly plenty of situations where one parent does not want the care of a child and children are better off with someone who wants their care.

What most who are advocating for 50/50 are after is what was called a rebuttable presumption or shared care. Start with an assumption of 50/50 shared care and if there are valid reasons why that is not suitable then do something else.

What we should not have is the situation where bitterness about the other parent or where financial considerations become the main factors in determining residency. It's all to easy to confuse your own angst against an ex with your childrens welfare.

The business of custody disputes can be crippling for all involved (including the children) and while there is not a recognised presumption of care such disputes do not require a sound basis for the dispute.

The division of assets based on residency arrangements at the time of the property settlement makes for a big inducement for some not to share the care of children. This cuts both ways parents who don't really want the kids may pretend to do so for a period to protect assets as well. It would be great if we could find a way of isolating asset division from residency but I've not yet seen any proposals that look like they would achieve good outcomes on that front.

Please don't assume that those advocating for 50/50 care are saying it should always occur. Rather we are saying that it should be the starting presumption and variation should only be forced with good reason (such as alcohol abuse when kids are in that parents care) or where one parent does not want the care.

R0bert

dear OP, I am not sure why you describe a situation where, in my expert view and 20 years experience in Fam Law, that father should have NO access/contact/spending time/visitations [whatever] with the child, but then jump onto the good old 50/50 with ReButterballs con job of the failed Howard govt.

These are totally different issues, not only under FLAct but from 1 July under CSAAct as well.

Did you actually go before a judge or a JR or was this all done via "House & Garden" as the lawyers call it in the RollOver Room??

all these terms and matters are explained in simple terms in my book and if you ask nicely I can give you the address

What a difficult situation to be in systemfailure, I hope everything works out for you.

RObert makes some good points about the presumption of 50/50 shared parenting as the designated starting point.

In one case I know of personally, 50/50 shared parenting did not work because of the disruption to the children's lives ie. moving week by week from one house to the other, but while the mother now has the children for most of the week, her ex-husband (who also travels a bit for work) gets to see the kids whenever he wants and if he feels like having them over for dinner during the week or going to see a movie that is fine. They often stay with him for extended periods during the holidays.

The premise for this decision was for the sake of the children and to best fit in with her husband's work commitments - both were happy with the outcome. For others 50/50 shared parenting may work well. One thing we know is there is no one size fits all solution each family needs an 'individually tailored" option.

I know someone who gave up a high position to 50 50 share. Hes a nice bloke. Hes nearly always been travelling as his job takes him overseas a great deal.

when his wife told him she wanted a divorce John gave notice.

Now as much as a lot of people try to make out this 50 50 parent thing isnt about settlement and money of course it is.

Hes no fool and I dont say he doesnt care for his kids but hes aware that if she keeps four reasonable young children she going to slaughter him at property settlement time.

Johns worked hard for his three houses and this and that etc etc.

So his lawyer advised him to leave his job and settle down as a part time dad.

I think hes actually really looking forward to it and to be honest hes given the kids more special time together since it all started.

I am very sure in the long run many times it can only be a good thing but my point is often 50 parenting really is about money property settlement and even centerlink payments.

If the serperation is particuly nasty it can do more harm than good as well with arguments after arguments every two days.

It also I am told by the lawyer (as I attended along with him as a friend)a way in which people who dont want to let go hang on a drag things out.

Many of those same people never bothered too much to raise the kids leaving it to Mummy.

Now if mums had enough this can be used to stop her going and control her.
A very very dangerous thing is give 50 50 unless each case is looked at long and hard.

Good if it works but hell for kids if it doesnt.