- If courts won't change custody
- By Bettina Arndt
- The Sydney Morning Herald
- 29/08/2003 Make a Comment
- Contributed by: admin ( 75 articles in 2003 )
More contact for fathers and early intervention strategies may prevent distress for children, writes Bettina Arndt.
Is reforming the Family Court a lost cause? Judging by the huge reaction to the parliamentary committee on joint custody there's immense public interest in the possibility of forcing the court to change its approach to child custody and contact issues. Almost 2000 submissions have been received over the past six months - a testimony to the widespread dissatisfaction with the system. But it may be that introducing new laws is the wrong way to go.
Constant exposure to the antics of the small group of seriously warring parents who end up in court has meant judges, lawyers and mediators often show considerable resistance to more enlightened views of post-divorce parenting.
Take the issue of contact with the youngest children affected by divorce, youngsters under two. Research by Bruce Smyth and Anna Ferro at the Australian Institute of Family Studies shows only 38 per cent of 0- to 2-year-old children living with single mothers stay overnight with their fathers, compared with 60 per cent of children aged 3-4.
The assumption made by the court and often replicated in advice from lawyers, counsellors and mediators is that such young children have only one "psychological" parent, and overnight contact can provide anxiety by separating the child from this parent. This is being challenged, says a University of Western Sydney law professor, Tom Altobelli, in a paper given to a family law practitioners' conference.
This notion of an exclusive attachment to the primary parent is based on an outdated view of parent-child relationships, says Altobelli, quoting research showing infants can form multiple attachments which contribute to their sense of security. The researchers quoted by Altobelli conclude infants and toddlers should have multiple contacts each week with both parents to minimise separation anxiety and maintain continuity in the child's attachments.
Children become stressed by separations from either parent that last more than three or four days, say the researchers and blanket restrictions on overnight contact for these young children are "unnecessarily restrictive", given the importance of evening and overnight periods as opportunities for crucial social interaction and nurturing.
Although there is some disagreement about the appropriate frequency of overnight contact for these infants, the researchers all agree that even the youngest children can tolerate separation of a few days from the primary caregiver when parents are communicating well.
The great irony is that as the family law experts quibble over how much contact the father should be allowed to have with his young children, everyone knows that these children will not be cared for exclusively by their mothers. Indeed, no.
These days many of these infants and toddlers will spend long periods cared for by unfamiliar child-care workers and will often be farmed out to relatives, friends, mum's boyfriend, even for overnight stays. Unrationed care is permitted by one and all - with rigid controls only on the child's father.
But chances of shifting attitudes in the Family Court on such matters seem slim. A better strategy is to encourage couples to rethink their approach to post-divorce parenting. The parliamentary committee should direct their efforts towards helping parents to start a different conversation - without ever going near the court - a conversation which might sometimes lead to shared custody or at least maintaining close relationships with not only fathers but other key attachments such as grandparents.
Instead of writing laws trying to change the way the court handles these issues, it's possible to introduce statutory orders, as they have in some US states, requiring that separating parents ensure contact occurs from the start of separation, with the prescribed amount varying with the age of the child.
Like driving rules, the community learns that by law these contact rules must apply, which, incidentally, can include a "right of first refusal" enabling fathers to be first cab off the rank when overnight care is needed for all children over two. These "early intervention strategies" also include mandatory mediation on parenting issues for all separating parents. This could be set up through Centrelink and the Child Support Agency, the two organisations in contact with most separating parents very soon after separation, with financial inducements to ensure participation similar to the participation requirements now part of our welfare system.
At present, when families break up, dad often disappears from the scene and it is often months or even years before contact is resumed. The result is distressed children, particularly young children, miss out on the comfort of attachments vital to their security in this difficult time. We have to find a better way.
https://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/28/1062050604126.html
Is reforming the Family Court a lost cause? Judging by the huge reaction to the parliamentary committee on joint custody there's immense public interest in the possibility of forcing the court to change its approach to child custody and contact issues. Almost 2000 submissions have been received over the past six months - a testimony to the widespread dissatisfaction with the system. But it may be that introducing new laws is the wrong way to go.
Constant exposure to the antics of the small group of seriously warring parents who end up in court has meant judges, lawyers and mediators often show considerable resistance to more enlightened views of post-divorce parenting.
Take the issue of contact with the youngest children affected by divorce, youngsters under two. Research by Bruce Smyth and Anna Ferro at the Australian Institute of Family Studies shows only 38 per cent of 0- to 2-year-old children living with single mothers stay overnight with their fathers, compared with 60 per cent of children aged 3-4.
The assumption made by the court and often replicated in advice from lawyers, counsellors and mediators is that such young children have only one "psychological" parent, and overnight contact can provide anxiety by separating the child from this parent. This is being challenged, says a University of Western Sydney law professor, Tom Altobelli, in a paper given to a family law practitioners' conference.
This notion of an exclusive attachment to the primary parent is based on an outdated view of parent-child relationships, says Altobelli, quoting research showing infants can form multiple attachments which contribute to their sense of security. The researchers quoted by Altobelli conclude infants and toddlers should have multiple contacts each week with both parents to minimise separation anxiety and maintain continuity in the child's attachments.
Children become stressed by separations from either parent that last more than three or four days, say the researchers and blanket restrictions on overnight contact for these young children are "unnecessarily restrictive", given the importance of evening and overnight periods as opportunities for crucial social interaction and nurturing.
Although there is some disagreement about the appropriate frequency of overnight contact for these infants, the researchers all agree that even the youngest children can tolerate separation of a few days from the primary caregiver when parents are communicating well.
The great irony is that as the family law experts quibble over how much contact the father should be allowed to have with his young children, everyone knows that these children will not be cared for exclusively by their mothers. Indeed, no.
These days many of these infants and toddlers will spend long periods cared for by unfamiliar child-care workers and will often be farmed out to relatives, friends, mum's boyfriend, even for overnight stays. Unrationed care is permitted by one and all - with rigid controls only on the child's father.
But chances of shifting attitudes in the Family Court on such matters seem slim. A better strategy is to encourage couples to rethink their approach to post-divorce parenting. The parliamentary committee should direct their efforts towards helping parents to start a different conversation - without ever going near the court - a conversation which might sometimes lead to shared custody or at least maintaining close relationships with not only fathers but other key attachments such as grandparents.
Instead of writing laws trying to change the way the court handles these issues, it's possible to introduce statutory orders, as they have in some US states, requiring that separating parents ensure contact occurs from the start of separation, with the prescribed amount varying with the age of the child.
Like driving rules, the community learns that by law these contact rules must apply, which, incidentally, can include a "right of first refusal" enabling fathers to be first cab off the rank when overnight care is needed for all children over two. These "early intervention strategies" also include mandatory mediation on parenting issues for all separating parents. This could be set up through Centrelink and the Child Support Agency, the two organisations in contact with most separating parents very soon after separation, with financial inducements to ensure participation similar to the participation requirements now part of our welfare system.
At present, when families break up, dad often disappears from the scene and it is often months or even years before contact is resumed. The result is distressed children, particularly young children, miss out on the comfort of attachments vital to their security in this difficult time. We have to find a better way.
https://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/28/1062050604126.html
1Will not be visible to public.
2Receive notification of other comments posted for this article. To cease notification after having posted click here.
3To make a link clickable in the comments box enclose in link tags - ie.<link>Link</link>.
4To show an image enclose the image URL in tags - ie.. Note: image may be resized if too large
To further have your say, head to our forum Click Here
To contribute a news article Click Here
To view or contribute a Quote Click Here