G’Day. Webdiary columnist Polly Bush has been angsting her way through the fraught issue of joint custody for a few weeks now, and she’s come up with a piece she’s not ENTIRELY happy with.
She calls it “the nightmare issue”, and writes:
I guess the conclusion I came to was that …
(a) joint residency is a wonderful concept and can work beautifully for some people,
(b) unfortunately I don’t think all separating couples would be able to cope with joint residency due to the differences in parenting responsibilities within relationships, and don’t think it’s necessarily good for all kids and
(c) residency issues should still be judged on an individual basis, therefore I’m against a one size fits all policy.
She found some wild men’s sites during her research, including kittennews.
If you’ve got something to say send your contributions to mkingston@smh.com.au and I’ll forward them to Polly, who’s agreed to guest edit a Webdiary on joint custody. The inquiry’s terms of reference and information on where to send your submission is published after Polly’s column.
***
Are your shoes mucky?
by Polly Bush
Just for one crazy moment imagine John and Janette ‘are your shoes mucky’ Howard are no longer comfortable old boots together and, God forbid, separate and divorce. Also imagine the three Howard children are much younger and require more intensive care from both parents.
After vetoing a teaching career to embrace the unpaid work of full-time parenting, Janette wants the children to remain with her. John knows the importance of family life personally and professionally and also wants his own time with the littlies. With both parents seen as being capable of fulfilling these roles, Melanie, Timmy and the other one are plunged into a 50/50 joint residency arrangement.
John has to somehow morph from man of steel to super dad. When he’s not protecting Australia from a handful of desperate people in leaky boats or saving the world from remarkably well hidden weapons of mass destruction, he’s busy car pooling (in a government car of course) on the school run.
Like all other dads in 50/50 share time arrangements, he’s forced to cut his working hours. On alternative weeks, he has to reschedule overseas and regional photo opportunities to rub up against world leaders and khaki families. If George calls an emergency meeting at the Ranch, John can no longer jet over at the drop of a cowboy hat. He’s far too busy sewing the sequins on the little one’s concert outfit, helping Timmy with his algebra, and talking through the birds and the bees to a pre-pubescent Melanie. The Australian public sees a lot less of their Prime Minister. Sniffs all round.
Realising the enormous pressures of being a part-time primary care-giver, John has the revelation that parliamentary sitting times are not so family friendly. When he’s looking after the children and parliament is sitting, he thinks about moving Parliament House in Canberra to Sydney. Maybe he and Bob Carr could swap cities. While in the past John may not have embraced paid maternity leave, he now considers paid paternity leave.
Anxious about John’s working hours and the time he can invest in the kids, Janette dreams of an alternative arrangement. Now sharing the costs of parenting, she looks for paid work. If she wants to challenge the presumed joint residency arrangement, she’ll take on the legal costs. With men still typically earning more than women, this might require a full-time job. Family friendly of course.
Given his stance on the Lodge, presumably Dad doesn’t want to move. For locality convenience, Janette will have to shack up close by. Fortunately, apparently there’s a vacancy in the GG’s Admiralty House right next door to Kirribilli. When the kiddies are with Mum and on the rare occasions Dad isn’t off playing politics, the kids will only have to look over the rambling harbourside lawn to catch a glimpse of Dad engaged in one of his favourite past-times – raking leaves. Then, particularly Timmy and the other lil fulla can reap the benefits of a male role model in their life.
If this scenario sounds like it’s radically changing the face of the family unit post separation, John Howard is the first to admit it. Of the Federal Government’s inquiry into changing the law to give separating parents automatic joint residency of children, Howard said it would be turning the existing arrangement “on its head”. Based on the rebuttable principle, joint residency would be the presumption for all separating couples with children – with those wanting different arrangements having to prove the other parent was incapable of sharing equal time.
The Inquiry is partially the result of intense lobbying by disgruntled fathers groups. One of the pollies targeted in the effort was One Nation Senator Len Harris, who introduced a private members bill on the issue around a year ago. The proposal was already one that was close to One Nation’s heart – in 1998, the Party’s policy on family law stated: “One Nation believes amicable family separations that result in joint custody or joint guardianship are the ideal outcome.” One Nation also planned to review “the functions and operations of the Child Support Agency”, another part of Howard’s current Inquiry.
South Australian Liberal MP Chris Pyne was targeted by another key player in the lobbying campaign, former South Australian Liberal Party Deputy Director and now Shared Parenting Association Director Geoff Greene. As such, Pyne raised the issue in a party meeting. It struck a chord, with Howard reportedly identifying the issue as an electoral “hot button”. Bit like that ol’ chestnut policy on asylum seekers.
Following the recent announcement of the Inquiry, One Nation Senator Len Harris has claimed victory. In a press release he issued last month with the headline ‘Liberals Adopt One Nation Family Law Policy’, he says: “It’s good to see that the Government is actively listening to One Nation, the voice of the people.” Again – it’s a bit like that ol’ chestnut policy on asylum seekers.
The Age’s Michelle Grattan described the proposal as “a union of battler politics and white picket fence ideology”. Labor’s Nicola Roxon labelled it “dog whistle politics to men’s groups aggrieved by the Family Court”. In response to Roxon, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs Larry Anthony (who has since become a bit of a pin-up boy on some men’s rights websites), said “I respect the Member’s long academic interest in women’s rights – but she must not let that cloud her vision when it comes to children and young people.” Because, you know, feminism is so anti-children.
Anthony has been quick to argue the Inquiry is “not about gender politics”. But isn’t it? One of John Howard’s public reasons for holding the Inquiry is out of concern for boys and the lack of so-called male role models. This nicely ties in with Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson’s recent agonising over the lack of male teachers in schools.
Of boys being brought up by separated mothers, Howard told former school teacher and now radio announcer Alan Jones that “they live with their mother, they don’t have older brothers or uncles or male grandparent with whom they can identify, and they go to schools now where there are very few male teachers”.
“They can often be 15 or 16 and perhaps never before they find a male role model and it does result in perhaps not the most balanced upbringing”.
Apart from the big question mark over what exactly constitutes a male role model, Howard’s remarks suggest the Inquiry is being set up to examine the interests of the sole male child, as opposed to acting in the interests of children per se. By dividing residency down the middle to equal shared time, some argue the proposal is not in the interests of children because it reduces them to being split like property. Perhaps that’s being generous, given the VCR doesn’t get passed between separated mums and dads week in week out.
Since news of the Inquiry broke newspapers have contained stories on joint residency families where the situation of shared time 50/50 works remarkably well. The featured couples have come up with the arrangement themselves – they live near each other and in some cases as neighbours. But in each of these stories (least the ones this ranter has read), the subjects say this is not something which would work for everybody, as in these special cases the parents have split amicably and remain on good terms. All credit to them.
On the surface the concept of 50/50 residency seems a fair one to parents, but is it fair to all children in practice? Most people would argue stability is one of the key factors in bringing up children. In this regard, is it in the best interests of all children of separated couples to regularly shift from home to home week in week out? Would it result in what Howard champions a “most balanced upbringing”? According to psychologist Jill Burrett, “the backwards and forwards between two houses can be really unsettling for kids over the years”.
At the very least, Howard’s decision to hold an Inquiry has spurred a side discussion on the broader issue of parenting. Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward applied the ‘even-if’ debate, looking at the role of fathers. “Equal parenting is not the 16 minutes of child play a day that is the average amount of time men spend with their children,” she said. By the time of divorce, Goward said, “one parent by then has invested so much more time and energy in the relationship with the children”.
Chief Justice of the Family Court Alastair Nicholson has a similar view. Responding last year to the perception that the Court unfairly grants residency to mothers (voiced in an article by Bettina Arndt), Nicholson wrote:
“The fact is that we do live in a society where the mother is the primary care giver in most intact marriages. It is therefore not surprising that parents are most likely to decide that mothers should retain that primary responsibility … it is also not surprising that judges will choose an environment that provides the greatest continuity and least disruption for children.”
A study released by a University of NSW researcher last week calculated the amount of time working mothers and fathers of young children had each day for their own leisure time. Of the 4000 families researched in the study, working fathers are said to have one hour and 12 minutes a day free time. For working mothers, it’s estimated at less than a second per day. If parenting arrangements currently have one parent with a more hands on role than the other, would shared parenting seriously be an option for most separating couples?
One of the separated fathers interviewed in a feature in The Age (‘Degrees of Separation’, June 28, Insight) conceded he’d like to have his daughter over to stay more, but “realises his job makes that impossible”.
When Bruce Smyth from the Australian Institute of Family Studies researched families in 50/50 situations, the fathers in these circumstances needed to reduce their working hours. An expert in family law, Smyth has described the arrangements of such cases as “the most logistically complex parenting arrangement possible”.
While many people argue the Family Court unfairly favours mothers, statistics are on the move, with an increasing number of fathers who appear in court winning residence. In 2000-01, 19.6 percent of residency orders went to fathers, up around ten percent from twenty years ago. Other research shows fathers winning up to 40 percent of cases they contest. Family law expert and University of Sydney Professor Patrick Parkinson has described the statistical jump as “a massive cultural shift in the interests of fathers”.
Currently, only around five percent of residency cases make it to trial. Most separating couples make their own arrangements; many others settle. With court stats recently showing an increase in granting residency to fathers, decisions favouring mothers have subsequently fallen. While split residency orders (splitting up siblings) have risen slightly, the already small amount of joint residency orders have recently fallen.
If legislation orders joint residency as the presumption, the number of couples appearing in the Family Court to alter this arrangement could actually increase. This would add significant costs to the separating couples involved, which in turn could cause debt to spiral and the rest. The Law Council of Australia’s Michael Foster estimates that with rebuttable joint residency in place, “there would be many more [court] proceedings … and far fewer settlements”.
It’s also estimated more women would bear the brunt of legal costs with many not able to challenge the arrangement. As the University of Sydney’s Professor Patrick Parkinson explains:
“There’s no way you could say it is in the best interest of the majority of children. If there’s a presumption, a lot of women will be pressured into it because they can’t afford $20,000 to litigate.”
If reports are true that Howard recognises the issue as a “hot button”, he’s right. Many people have stories and experiences on this highly emotive topic. Ask anyone. Stories from children of divorce will vary from bitter divides between parents to parents who had reasonably amicable relationships. Stories from separated parents can vary from those who want less contact to those who want more residency.
Like all issues, this one has its extremes. Some will argue that limited contact combined with the costs of child support combined with family court costs is literally killing fathers. At the other end, the debate shifts to the old fashioned argument that women are universally better parents. Like all debates the truth probably lies murkily in the middle.
The point is that all family situations are unique. Let’s face it, all families are different and have their own individual make-ups and break-ups. This is one of the main arguments against imposing a one-size-fits-all policy like joint residency. A one-size-fits-all policy will not fit all, and arguably won’t even fit the majority of all current situations. While the current system doesn’t satisfy all involved, cases are examined on an individual basis with the Family Court basing its judgement on the best interests of the child(ren).
As a politician, John Howard would know too well the demands his working life has had on his family. Would shared residency be an option for a career politician and his/her partner with young children? It might be easy to spoof John Howard tackling the joys of care giving in a shared residency arrangement, but why so? Why should the scenario seem outrageous? Take out the gender argument and it might be simply because it’s assumed the job of a Prime Minister would be too intensive to also factor in intensive hands-on child caring. If so, is a workaholic by choice or by career really a good role model for their children? Do workaholics keep families together?
If Howard is prepared to examine the issue of giving separating parents equal time, he should be prepared to have a broader debate on the roles and responsibilities of parents prior to divorce. The issue of shared parenting must be tackled well and truly before governments have inquiries into shared custody. Shared parenting and family friendly work practices for both parents might even just keep more families together.
***
Inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation
Terms of Reference
On 25 June 2003 the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, the Hon Larry Anthony MP, and the Attorney-General, the Hon Daryl Williams AM QC MP, asked the committee to inquire into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation.
Having regard to the Government’s recent response to the Report of the Family Law Pathways Advisory Group, the committee should inquire into, report on and make recommendations for action:
(a) given that the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration:
(i) what other factors should be taken into account in deciding the respective time each parent should spend with their children post separation, in particular whether there should be a presumption that children will spend equal time with each parent and, if so, in what circumstances such a presumption could be rebutted; and
(ii) in what circumstances a court should order that children of separated parents have contact with other persons, including their grandparents.
(b) whether the existing child support formula works fairly for both parents in relation to their care of, and contact with, their children.
(c) with the committee to report to the Parliament by 31 December 2003.
Submissions to the inquiry are sought by Friday 8 August 2003. Given the tight reporting time for this inquiry those making submissions are asked to keep their submissions concise. Contributors making submissions are advised to obtain guidelines on the preparation of a submission. These are available from the secretariat or from the committee’s website. If you would like your submission, or parts of it, to be made confidential, please indicate this clearly in your submission.
Submissions should be directed to:
Committee Secretary
Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs
Child Custody Arrangements Inquiry
Department of the House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia
Tel: (02) 6277 4566
Fax: (02) 6277 4844
Email: FCA.REPS@aph.gov.au
Public hearings, community forums and briefings also will be held to collect further evidence. Details of these will be posted on this website as soon as they are known.