We must all admit that we could no longer live without the internet, but is it causing chaos to the family unit? Is the availability of romance online, causing relationship break-ups then causing problems with the relocation of the parents, wanting to be with their new lovers?
An explosion in online romances is making it the toughest Family Court issue, even tougher, with more separated parents than ever finding love and wanting to move their children interstate or overseas to be with a new partner.
As reported in the Sun-Herald yesterday. A world-first study of 80 parents involved in relocation disputes, shows that online dating is having a devastating impact on already-broken homes, put an average distance of 1646 kilometres between children and the parent left behind.
When chatting to Doctor John Irvine last night on radio 2UE about this very subject, Dr Irvine indicated it was one of the hardest areas to be drawn into. He stated that the children were caught in the middle of a parent wanting to be with a new lover, when the chances of the new relationship not working out was even higher than that of first marriages. The parent with the new love interest wants to be with their new partner and the other partner does not necessarily want to stop the other parent being happy, but at the same time does not want to lose the ability to live close to their children.
Just last week the High Court the case of Rosa V Rosa, in which a mother had been ordered to stay living in a caravan park in Queensland and not allowed to move back to Sydney (the mother had moved their when the father obtained a job in the area mining and then the parties separated), even though she was depressed and on welfare parents. The Family Court had decided it was in the best interests of the child to stay in the area close to her father’s mining career. The High Court decided that the decision of the Family Court was wrong and ordered a fresh hearing.
The legal costs for such applications can be crippling and statistics show that they are more expensive than any other area of family law and have the least likelihood of settling out of court with 59% of the cases having to be determined by a judge which is four times the general rate.
Former Family Court Judge Richard Chisholm has reported that Relocation disputes are the most difficult decisions judges must make.
What is your view on this? Do you think partners should be allowed to move interstate or overseas with the children to be with new partners and if so why?
Well Tiger is sorry, and although the rest of the world hasn’t forgiven his mum has! It’s nice to see the unconditional love of a mother for her son. To her he is still her baby. At least some things never change.
This week on legal matters we will be concentrating on workplace relations. We will be talking to Stan Pan from Worksafe Victoria on working conditions, Mike Selinger from Holding Redlich Lawyers on Occupational Health and Safety in the workplace and Brian Williamson from Workplace Sydney on the new unfair dismissal laws. We will also be covering our regular wills and estates topics with Expert Wills Lawyer Peter Bobbin and we will have our regular Family Law segment with Barrister Thos Hodgson on how to set aside a Family Law settlement if your ex hid some of the assets when you settled.
For free legal advice we will be takeing your calls on 131332 and will also answer emails.
What is wrong with everyone? I just don’t get it? Why are Father’s groups issuing statements that they will vow to fight “any” changes to the shared -care provisions in the family law when they don’t know what the changes may be? Perhaps the changes may benefit children, most of all very young children who can’t speak up for themselves and who may be in danger. The review to look into the issue whether changes were necessary were sparked when three year old Darcey died, after being thrown from a bridge in Melbourne last year, allegedly by her father. Surely, if there is a need to make enquiries about whether the new laws must be reviewed to protect our children, fathers must support that, if the children are their main concern.
Two of the main criticisms of the new shared-care provisions were that firstly, they did not adequately provide for very young children under the age of two and secondly, that they did not adequately protect children and parents in violent situations. On Friday, Attorney General Robert McClelland said on ABC radio “It was not for the parliament or any interest group to declare presumptions about what was in the best interests of each child. While the parliament has and continues to reflect the community desire that there be shared parental responsibility, at the end of the day it is for the judges and magistrates to decide.”
However, in some cases decisions by some judges are of concern. In a case reported in the newspaper late last year, the full bench of the Family Court have found that a decision by a Judge in the Family Court to needed to be reconsidered by another judge of the Family Court. In that case a mother faced arrest for contempt of court orders after she moved her children and refused to return them to the state where the father lived. The mother had relocated to NSW with her two daughters and new baby with her new husband to NSW where her children were settled in school. What were the mother’s reasons for refusing contact with the father?
The mother adopted what the judge described as “an intensely obstructive attitude” to the father seeing the children, after the mother was privy to her six year old’s child allegations of her daughter of inappropriate sexual behavior by her father”. The court heard a police video of the child’s testimony and the judge wrote, as is quoted in the newspaper today, “What is witnessed is a young, open and engaging little girl relating a totally believable and persuasive account of inappropriate sexual behavior by her father.” The judge also accepted the evidence of a “highly experienced” child psychiatrist who concluded that the evidence was “highly suggestive of the father having sexually abused at least the older girl, and thereby having placed the younger daughter also in a situation of risk of future abuse”. But the judge found in his decision last year that the children loved their father and needed a regular relationship with him through supervised visits. He did not trust the mother to facilitate contact if she was allowed to move the children to NSW. The judge also ordered the children to attend a protective behaviors program to learn how to protect themselves from unwanted sexual touching and other dangers. The full court of three judges found that the Judge gave inadequate regard to the father’s long term parenting capacity given the finding of “unacceptable risk” and he had also failed to properly consider whether it was necessary for the mother to move the children back in order for the father to have time with them.
There were problems with the new laws from the beginning. There has been confusion about what the laws meant and whether or not joint parenting was automatically provided under the new laws. Surely we can see that there needs to be some changes to make the laws clearer, protect the very young children being exposed, and protecting children from violence. Let’s not focus on whether dad’s or mum’s rights are being affected, but what is best for the emotional and physical safety of our children.
If you were listening to my show on 2UE last Sunday night you would have heard us discussing the report that has just been completed by the by the Australian Institute of Family Studies for the Attorney General’s Department as the Rudd Government is considering making changes to the controversial shared parenting laws. We spoke to Dr John Irvine, psychologist, who discussed many problems separated families faced when trying to reach agreement on arrangements for young especially children between the ages of 0-3 years of age.
Just this evening I was at a B-B-Q, when someone started discussing visiting relatives on Christmas Day. He said he had been flying to see his mother interstate and was very surprised to see the number of very young unaccompanied children to board flights on Christmas Day, to enable them to spend time with both their parents. Apparently an airline Official told him that Christmas Day is always the busiest day they have for unaccompanied children. How very sad that these children would be spending most of their day alone on a plane just to enable both of their parents to see them!
The Family Law Act is supposed to put the interests of the children first and make it the primary consideration for any orders they make in relation to children. In too many cases I think that it is the interests of parents that are put first. Many studies have shown that in high conflict situations that the only solution is to try and keep the parents apart and to have the arrangements set in stone for any parenting arrangements to work. When the new parenting laws came into effect this type of situation saw toddlers being woken up from naps and breastfeeding mothers ordered to cease breastfeeding to enable arrangements set in stone to be made and take place – how can this be in the best interests of children?
I recall a founder of a men’s group telling me recently how he attended and listened in to a Court case involving one of the men he was supporting. The Judge read out a section of the Family Report where the counsellor stated that a 6 year old child drew picture of herself and where her face was she put a clock. She said she felt that she was a clock and all she did was wait for time to go to mum and then to dad’s. She wished she could just live in one house and visit the other parent sometimes. It never ceases to break your heart.
I have been reading in the papers with concern regarding several articles relating to family law issues. One of the areas is the increase in the number and frequency of AVO’s being taken out by parents for their children against other children whom are as young as 4 years old. Are we seriously suggesting that this is necessary in our society? AVO’s against toddlers? What next?
Another area of concern is the frequency of homicides occurring in domestic situations, such as the girl in France who cannot explain why she killed her lover by stabbing him twice. I was in Fiji last week and on the front page of the paper was a story of a man who had killed his wife when he had never shown any sign of violence ever before. Why does this happen and why is over 75% committed by partners in a domestic situation and where in most of the cases there has never been a history of violence? Is it because some people just can’t cope with the emotional turmoil that can be caused to a person during the emotional process of separation or separation breakdown?
One of our regular topics of discussion and which seems to be in the papers and media frequently are interstate and international child abduction cases by one parent. This is not a crime. Some parents spend years trying to see their children again after one parent has taken them interstate or overseas. Other parents have said they have spent ten’s of thousands of dollars with little or no success of bringing their children back into the country or being able to see them overseas. Why is it not a crime?
We will discuss these issues and more in our segments this week on 2UE, Wednesday at 2pm and ‘Legal Matters’ on 2UE Sunday’s 6-8pm.
The issue of whether couples should enter into pre-nups before they marry or live together is becoming a hot topic. Lawyers are reporting all over the world that the pre-nup is becoming more and more popular. Of course in almost every celebrity marriage we now expect there is one done. Many Sydney law firms are reporting an almost tripling of demand for prenups, particularly for young professionals and those people who are marrying for the second or more time and have children/and or grandchildren from previous relationships they wish to protect.
What do I think about pre-nups? Of course at first instance it doesn’t seem to be romantic; however it may not be as bad as it seems. A girlfriend of mine who had been living with her partner for over 3 years recently decided to purchase a house with him. It was then that the discussion of what would happen to each other’s share in the house if something happened to each of them. Then he brought up the issue of a pre-nup and she called me quite distressed. I said to her “Just listen to what he has to say. You have kids. He has kids. Perhaps what he is proposing may be really sensible for both of you.” Guess what? It was, and if the relationship ends they both know exactly where they stand.
I think, and always have, that the best time to try and work out a problem is when you are not emotional. Trying to resolve issues after a relationship breakdown is quite a challenge due to all the emotions involved, not only financially but in relation to children. It may possibly be the best time to work out the solution when you are both in love and want to be fair and kind to each other than when you are at war.
I have been reading with concern that there are a number of DIY pre-nup kits for sale on the internet. A Sydney company has reportedly been selling the kids for $90 amid a massive spike in demand for the binding marriage contracts.
I agree with the opinion of former Family Court judge Paul Guest that people should be warned to be careful with the DIY kits as they risk having the agreements overturned in the Family Court. The former judge described them as a “recipe for disaster” in the newspaper this week. There are strict requirements for these contracts to be binding and one of them is that each party obtain independent legal advice. Therefore you will need to consult a solicitor for the agreement to be binding and enforceable.
Julie Singleton
Solicitor
Level 26,
44 Market Street,
Sydney NSW 2000
Ph: 908 98783
The Rudd government is planning to roll back the controversial shared parenting law passed in 2006, enraging men’s groups who say the laws finally gave them the access to their children after separation.
The changes sought to assist with parents who were in high conflict. However, studies have now shown that the children whose parents were in high conflict have suffered most with the changes. The increased contact forced on the parents and the children to each other has been more detrimental than helpful.
A change was flagged after the incident with Darcy Freeman when she was thrown over the bridge in Melbourne after her mother said in court at the committal hearing that she had been terrified of their former partner, and had told neighbours and others that he was certain to kill one of her children.
The submission also calls for the Family Court to consider the role a parent plays prior to separation. This was a major consideration by the courts prior to the 2006 changes, the Court took into account as one of the most important factors the stability of the child’s life and how that would be affected by any orders made. The 2006 changes, made clear by the decision of the case Goode and Goode in 2006 that the court must now not look to the established arrangements of the child (which may have meant the father had little or no role in the child’s life) but must follow the legislative pathway and make an assumption of equal shared care if there was no evidence of violence or abuse. So for example in such cases where a father had left before a child was born and came back nine years later, after his mother had remarried and he only knew his step-father as his father (as in one real example placed before the Attorney General in this enquiry) the father was successful in obtaining an order the child have time with him each alternate weekend and half school holidays when he had no existing emotional bond with.
The other major problem with the new legislation was that it did not provide an age for the presumption of equal shared care to commence so when a breast feeding mother was ordered to stop breast feeding to enable a father to have the child over the weekends women’s groups were outraged. The guidelines necessary such as the gradual increment of time with a parent for babies and very young children to be built up was not factored in an this was creating huge problems for women trying to hand over crying babies and toddlers to fathers who they had not spent substantial time with.
The issues and problems with ordering time with a parent who has been violent to a partner needs to be addressed. The view that the court has held from time to time that just because a partner is violent to an adult does not mean they will be violent to their children I believe is unrealistic on two counts. Firstly if you are capable of violence towards your spouse surely you have evidence of not being able to control your anger and this will flow into your behaviour when tested by the patience needed for caring for children. Secondly once victim violence how is a mother or father suppose to be convinced that the partner will not be violent to their children as in the Darcey Freeman case.
Changes are needed to the Parenting Laws to benefit mums, dads and especially all the children involved. There were many issues that were not given proper attention and hopefully they will now be addressed.
They often say that lawyers are the ones to win out of any divorce. But what if the two parties agree that they don’t want to go to court, while still using a lawyer each?
Can this be done? Yes, it’s called Collaborative Law.
Each party is represented by their respective collaboratively trained lawyer throughout the process.
Both lawyers help their client and the other party to work as a team to:
-find and focus on their common interests;
-understand each other’s concerns;
-make a full and frank exchange of information;
-explore a wide range of possible choices; and
-reach solutions acceptable to both parties
Both lawyers and their clients sign a contract at the start of the process which provides that all four parties to the contract will not go to Court and will not use threats of going to Court to solve the dispute. If one party then commences an action in Court neither lawyer can act for the respective parties and the parties will need to retain new lawyers.
If you wish to obtain more information about Collaborative Law or find a Collaborative Lawyer you will find information and details of Lawyers in your area at www.collaborativelaw.asn.au
What happened with Tiger Woods? Is what happened an example of emotions that went out of control as portrayed in the media, or was it just a car accident.
We have seen many examples of emotions getting out of control when people are faced with emotional situations involving relationships. Like Heather Mills throwing a glass of water over Paul McCartney’s lawyer at the hearing of their family law matter, Greg Birds recent court cases involving his girlfriend and John Della Bosca’s girlfriend coming out in the press with their alleged affair when he wouldn’t leave his wife. And we’ve all heard of the stories of women taking scissor’s to their husbands suits, letting down tires, putting prawn heads in cars and calling overseas from their home phones when you know they are away and leaving the phone off the hook!
Why do people lose it and do things they would never otherwise do when faced with emotional anger? Anger is a natural, healthy and necessary feeling. However, how we express anger is very important. If we express in an out of control fashion we can do things we have never done before and may regret. If we repress the feelings, we can become depressed. There needs to be a balance of feeling the anger and dealing with it in a healthy way.
Useful ways of dealing with anger are talking with a friend who will listen to you and support you, exercise such as yoga, walking, jogging, kick boxing or a team sport like tennis. Also try watching funny movies like “The First Wives Club”, “The War of the Roses”, “Under The Tuscan Sun” or “Step Mom” to help you realise you are not alone and there can be funny side to what you are going through.
If you don’t get over the anger phase it can take over your mind and distort how you should look at things in your life.
If you find you are having trouble coping with anger, or if you are repressing your anger and feeling depressed try calling Relationships Australia for some counselling and help.
Well even if you usually don’t get involved in reading about the personal lives of celebrities, none of us have been able to avoid reading and hearing about the personal life of Tiger Woods lately.
In the paper today, we now hear that his wife will be “standing by her man” and not leaving him, even though there have now been over 10 women revealed to have had affairs with him over the past couple of years.
What is your view on this? Do you think that Tiger and his Wife will be able to save their marriage? Can Tiger reform and even if he can, will his Wife be able to deal with what has happened and get over it and move on?
This Sunday night on 2UE between 6-8Pm on my show “Legal Matters” we will be discussing this subject with experts the pro’s and con’s of reconciliations and what it takes to make one work.
Personally, in my experience I have seen reconciliations work, but only if both parties are extremely honest, fess up about all the indiscretions, and then work with each other to forgive each other and make sure the reasons for the affairs are dealt with. Let me tell you, this is easier said than done, most people want to reconcile without confessing their sins, and that in my experience does not work. I wish them both luck and hope it works out for them and especially for their beautiful children.
We hope that 2010 is a happy and healthy new year for you all. We are starting the new year with a show that we hope will help you all start to some of your legal matters in order.
On our Show tonight we will be talking about how to deal with holiday travel drama’s, organ donation, child support issues, negotiating a new or how to renew your employment contract, the changes to the defacto laws and how they they have changed, and how and why you should get your will, superannuation and life insurance in order. Our guests for the show on 4 January, 2010 are:
1. Christopher Zinn from Choice who will discuss your rights when you have a holiday travel drama;
2. Dr Gerry O’Callaghan who is the National Medical Director of the Organ and Tissue Authority to talk about organ donation and how it works;
3. Robert Lancaster from Lancasters Investigations on tips on finding information about your ex for child support assessments’
4. Julia Ross Managing Director from Julia Ross Personnel on how to negotiate an employment package;
5. Thos Hodgson Family Law Barrister on how the Defacto Relationships laws were changed from March, 2009 and how they may affect you, your children or friends and what the changes were;
6. Philip McGowen accredited specialist in Succession and Estates on Getting your Affairs in Order in the New Year.
We hope you will join us to listen or join in the discussion on the show and if you wish to contact any of our specialists that are on the show you will find their contact details on the site under the heading “2UE Guests”.
#1 by shivers on March 2nd, 2010
Quote
“But the judge found in his decision last year that the children loved their father and needed a regular relationship with him through supervised visits. ”
And this is where things come unstuck. In society the term “sexual abuse” or “molestation” conjures up images of the child having fear, being scared, being worried, and of not wanting to go with the perpetrator. Unfortunately, the dynamic that “good sexual abusers ensure their victims enjoy the behaviour” is overlooked by judges and magistrates. So you end up with (many) cases where the (young) children still “love” their perpetrator and want to be with them, but at the same time reporting the behaviour, sometimes with a smile on their face. What occurs to the child when they grow up and realise that what they have been doing and how society considers it, can be devastating. More often than not, substance abuse, promiscuity and an inability to form healthy adult relationships is the result.
This particular case was even “lucky” and I use that term lightly, in that the child disclosed the information when it was needed. In many cases, only one parent is given the information and the child quickly catches on to the fact that what they have said has resulted in reduced contact with their other “loving” parent. When they work this out, they clam up. They will not disclose anything more.
In cases like this, adults need to intervene and over-ride the “relationship with both parents” being the best option for the child.
Another disturbing aspect of this case, was that the children had to attend a behaviourial course (which is probably not a problem and can only be helpful) but there is no mention of the perpetrator being forced to attend some sort of behaviourial program. Actions such as this put all the responsibility onto the victims and the abuser’s actions are minimised, made not important and become invisible. In this case it sounds like the parent lacked appropriate boundary setting, and in fact, has incestuous tendencies. Until the perpetrator is made to acknowledge the issues they have the issue of possible incest within the family will always be present – despite how much the children are taught ‘good and bad’ touching. The incestuous perpetrator can easily over-ride such formal training by simply stating, “Oh but it doesn’t apply to me. What they are telling you is to make sure that no-one else touches you like that. But it’s ok for me to do it, coz I love you and am not a stranger.”
Excellent article.