www.geocities.com/nzecon/clip/2000301HeraldNewmanBill.html

Dialogue, NZ Herald, 1 Mar 2000
 

Over the past 20 years, the nature of the family unit has changed profoundly. Fewer couples are marrying, those that are marrying are doing so later and having fewer children, and the divorce rate is climbing. As a result, the number of intact families is reducing while the numbers of re-configured and sole-parent families is increasing.

One serious consequence of these changes is the growth in parental alienation, as parents, for a variety of reasons lose effective contact with their children.

It's a problem of huge magnitude, hid den by the fact that New Zealand social policy agencies do not keep statistics on the consequences for the children of separated parents.

But by comparing existing data from the Inland Revenue Department, the New Zealand census and Justice Department research, it would appear that at least 55,000 and possibly as many as 75,000 New Zealand children now have no contact with one of their parents.

Up to 120,000 more see one of their parents only once a fortnight. In most cases, it is the father that has lost contact with his children.

A growing number of researchers believe "fatherlessness" will be one of the most serious social pathologies of this century. Many children do not appear to do well without their father's guidance through to adulthood.

Early indications from those who work with young people, particularly in the area of youth justice, show a serious and growing problem among boys growing up with out a father's influence.

On every important social indicator - poverty, drop-out rates, unemployment, behavioural disorders, teenage pregnancy, substance abuse, crime - children with- out fathers do worse than children with fathers

For many parents, this alienation is a consequence of the law. New Zealand's divorce laws, crafted in the late 1960s, are based on the notion that children are better off if they live with one parent. The other parent, must negotiate "visiting" rights, but their entitlement to see their children is more often than not limited.

By giving custodial rights to one parent, the rights of children to retain full contact with both parents in a separating family are compromised.

All too often, couples separate in an environment of open warfare, with the children being used as ammunition. Con fused by a situation where the parents they love, who once loved each other, are embroiled in conflict, the children become the victims. In most cases, all they want is for their mum and dad to be able to get on with each other.

A recent issue of Butterworths Family Law Journal looked into the issue of separation from the perspective of the children. It concluded that "continuing relationships with both parents seemed to be an important aspect of helping children to adjust to parental separation."

Most New Zealanders would accept that children do better if they are able to maintain an ongoing relationship with both their mother and their father - unless, of course, violence and abuse are involved.

In recognising the need to do better in this sensitive and difficult area, a growing number of countries are looking towards shared parenting in law, so that the children caught up in a change of family circumstance are. not deprived of either their mother or father.

Knowing that this is a serious issue in this country, I have drafted a private member's bill which has just been drawn in the ballot. The Shared Parenting Bill is based on the notion that if divorce or separation is inevitable, both parents should be able to continue to share in the parenting of their children. It would set in place protocols that would help children have frequent and continuing access to both parents.

First, separating parents will be expected to try and reach a mutually acceptable agreement on how much time each will have with their children. They will be expected to draw up a fairly simple parenting plan that they can stick to.

This need not involve lawyers, and need not be complicated or difficult. In Australia, where they use parenting plans it's a matter of simply ticking boxes on a form. If the parents cannot reach agreement, the fallback option is a 50:50 split between both parents.

This is where the new law would differ from the present one. At present if the parents cannot agree, one of them most commonly gets sole custody with the other getting access rights. Under shared parenting, if they cannot agree, the out come is equal for both parents.

Equality before the law is a most important principle. It certainly should apply to parents.

Shared parenting will help bring fathers back into families. It will reduce the amount of hostility in separation situations. It will get rid of the notion that one of the separating parents must be the winner and the other the loser.

And, most importantly, it will stop the child from losing a parent. At present, a child walks into the family court with two parents - and walks out with only one. This is a preventable tragedy.

I hope each and every MP will today support the passage of this bill through to a select committee, so that this whole difficult and sensitive issue can be properly addressed.
 

NZ Herald, 6 Mar 2000
 

I accept the Shared Parenting Bill raises important and complex issues, and I agree that the statistics confirm that the status quo is not ideal. However, Dr Muriel Newman's bill is not a step forward in the protection of children's best interests.

It is axiomatic that the best interests principle applies when making decisions about custody and access in broken family situations. However, like many regulators, Muriel Newman believes she has the solution that will always be a better fall-back position than letting experts review each case on its merits.

She says: "For many parents this alienation is a consequence of the law." What research is available to support this comment? What about the many situations where it is not true. Has any research been undertaken to support this blanket approach to resolving a problem that is both important and complex?

Whatever the reasons, if a parent prefers not to have custody of their child (for example, because they realise the other parent is best suited to that responsibility), it seems quaint to enforce an equal share outcome. If parents are bitter and in an aggressive dispute, the idea that a person can always say "I don't agree, therefore we get 50:50 sharing" is just about as far removed from the best-interests principle as one can be.

Education about parenting might be part of the solution. However, when a regulator is faced with spending money (on education) to achieve a goal, it is interesting how focused and confused they become.
 

Maybe I'm cynical, but I wonder about the introduction of Muriel Newman's split custody bill and its widespread approval, notably by fathers' rights groups.

Joint (or split) custody has been tried in the United States and has failed miserably. It will work only where both parents have contact with each other, peaceably, and where they live close

to one another. Mandatory joint custody would, of course, cut the DPB bill in half. I can't help but think that this is Muriel Newman's main motive.

The other worrying aspect of the bill (as reported in the media) is the provision that par ents who make false allegations of sexual abuse or domestic violence, will be punished by a $1000 fme. This will occur if such an allegation is made to frustrate custody. Who, though, decides if an allegation is false or if it was made to frustrate custody?

Many women will not disclose that they have experienced violence until they are away from the man and feel safe. But then, they would be assumed to be lying, because they are getting a divorce. When can a woman then say that she is being beaten? Only if she stays, and is at risk of further violence.