www.geocities.com/nzecon/clip/2000305NewmanBillSST.html

Sunday Star-Times, 5 Mar 2000
 

EVER since Wellington man Raymond separated from his wife three years ago, he has struggled to maintain contact with his young daughter.

He has sought as much access as he can through the Family Court, but the most he can get is two hours a fortnight. For Raymond, it is not enough.

"The problem is, if I say I want more time with my daughter, I get told that's abusive to the mother. I've been threatened with a protection order if I continue down that road. I'm not a saint but I'm not a violent man either. Why is there this inference you're doing wrong if you try to get more time with your child?"

Counsellors had even told him the natural father was "an allowable loss" when new family structures were being established.

"There are 672 hours in a month - why do I only get four of them. There's this assumption fathers tend to be violent and abusive while mothers are happy and loving. It's totally unfair," he said.

He's one of many men pinning their hopes on Act MP Muriel Newman's Shared Parenting Bill, which prefers joint custody over sole custody. Under her proposal, parents would be encouraged to agree on the time children spend with each parent, with a fall-hack position of a 50-50 split if they can't agree.

Newman says the bill would not force joint custody on parents. Instead parents would be encouraged to take joint responsibility for their children.

While the current system allows for counselling when parents can't agree on childcare arrangements, Newman wants greater emphasis on mediation.

"When couples split they're both saying they want the kids. Immediately, you have a potential war. They're both frightened of losing the kids. If the prevailing scenario was both will retain contact with the kids, everything changes," she says.

But parents with sole custody while shared parenting sounds ideal, it would be unworkable for some families.

Christchurch woman Julie separated from her husband nine years ago, when her daughter was three and her son five.

After years of Family Court proceedings, Julie has sole custody and her husband has access every second weekend plus one night during the week,

Initially her husband applied for sole custody. When she won interim custody, he applied for joint custody.

"But I would not agree to that because for him access to the children was a way of get ting access to me. There were lot of power and control issues He would try to turn the kid.' against me. The entire time they were with him there'd be this constant stream of vitriolic stuff about their mother.

"Plus I'd send them away with a bag of clothes on Friday night and they'd be wearing the same clothes on Sunday night. He didn't have beds for them. They'd be allowed to watch television until 1 am, drink fizzy and eat lollies. There was a lack of parenting skills," she said.

She opposes Newman's bill because she feels it would have been wrong for her children to have been subjected to a disagreeable 50:50 split. The Family Court system justifiably focuses on the best interests of children.

Her former husband was still a legal guardian and had a say over issues such as schooling. He remained a major influence in her children's lives.

She suspects some men might seek shared custody to reduce child support obligations. "Men don't have to pay the same share of child support if they have the children more than 40% of the time," she said.

Tauranga-based Men and their Children spokesman Darrell Carlin insists the Family Court inflicts a kind of institutionalised psychological abuse on men and children.

"What better way to abuse a former partner than to take the children from them More and more men are losing their kids every day. Men in stable relationships don't realise how tenuous their hold on their kids is."

A 1991 survey suggests a quarter of children lose all con tact with the non-custodial parent and another 40% see that parent only once a fortnight.

Some who have tried Newman's shared parenting arrangement agree it has potential to work well for some families.

Christchurch man, Alastair, and his former partner alternate care of their three children on a week-on, week-off basis. They share the bills, schooling responsibilities and other costs.

"The kids definitely benefit. Their school reports show that, Alastair says. The former couple lives 2km apart and the children's grandmother picks them up from school when Alastair's work prevents him from being there.

"I think the other reason this works is because we're not battling with each other or yelling all the time."

Critics of Newman's bill say that is precisely why her proposal is flawed. It relies on an assumption that with a little mediation separating parents will be able to reach reasonable agreements.

Wellington counsellor Rhonda Pritchard, who last year published a book on the effects of divorce on children, says shared parenting can work only if parents can cooperate and negotiate. She says research showed ongoing parental conflict is ultimately more damaging to children than whether they are seeing less of one parent than the other.

"I believe the courts are already well aware of the needs of the children to see both parents and they go to some lengths to provide loving parenting by establishing access arrangements.

"The problem with a 50:50 split is it implies fairness between parents is the priority, when we should be looking at what provides the best security and harmony for children," she said.

Victoria University psychology lecturer Jan Pryor agrees: "It's difficult to argue children should be going from house to house if the parents are fighting like cats and dogs. Conflict is bad for children. This bill doesn't say children should be consulted, even though they of ten have clear views. They don't always want equal time with both parents."

Other groups insist it's fatherlessness that is most damaging. According to FARE (Families Apart Require Equality), fatherless children are more likely to be juvenile delinquents, have behavioural disorders, commit suicide, abuse drugs, or wind up homeless or school dropouts.

FARE spokesman Darryl Ward said: "It's largely men who are missing out. We're very much in favour of equality and fairness and having 50-50 custody as a starting point."

Women as Family Court Consumers spokeswoman Joanne Neilson says the Family Court does not discriminate against men. Often men precluded themselves from shared custody because of job commitments.

"It's very hard to get access denied to the father. I see women whose partners can have a history of drug dealing or serious violence and it's still quite hard to get men out of the picture," says Neilson.

Christchurch man Robert admits shared care probably would not have worked when his relationship ended because he was a shift worker - and his ex had now moved to Australia.

But he believes Newman's bill might have helped him reach an access agreement more readily.

"It's so black and white. What's important is parents should be involved with their children so they can see them grow up with proper emotional security. It can be so hard getting access that some fathers give up."

Auckland University associate law professor Pauline Tapp sees practical obstacles to 50:50 custody splits becoming the norm.

If parents don't live in the same town, city or suburb, shared care might involve a child having to attend two schools. And shared care is less likely to work for low income families. "Under shared care, mum would not get the DPB or child support, or it would be reduced. Dad would face having to pay for childcare out of his limited income," said Tapp.

The Inland Revenue Department confirmed if two parents shared care, child support paid by one parent to the other could be reduced, depending on circumstances. But a spokeswoman noted that while one parent might receive less income as a result, the other would also be sharing a greater proportion of childcare costs.

Tapp says parents who did not cooperate or have the same beliefs on parenting were also unlikely to be able to amicably share their children.

And older children and teenagers might prefer to live with one parent over another. Tapp said the courts went through a phase of pushing for shared care in the 1980s, but had quickly realised its limitations. "For example, there was one case where a judge ordered shared care of a breast feeding baby. That was clearly crazy."

Newman says if parents lived too far apart for a week by week arrangement to work, then they could look at other ways to share their children. "Maybe they'd decide that while the children were young they'd spend time with mum, but when they reached their teens they'd spend time with dad. This bill says put conflict behind you and find a way to reach an agreement,' she said.

Newman says she disagreed with critics who argued her bill pandered to men's rights groups. Shared parenting is already working in 48 states of America. Canada and Australia were also moving in that direction, she says.

University of Otago family law expert Professor Mark Henaghan says existing law al ready confers equal rights of guardianship.

"In reality, it may not work out that way. Often the parent with access feels they are an after-thought," he said.

He believes Newman's Bill provides a wake-up call to the existing system to follow-through on ideals already embedded in it. "However, the fundamental difficulty is that those who are prepared to co operate already do so."

Tony and Sally separated in 1990. Sally has custody of their son, with Tony having access every second weekend and in school holidays. While the arrangement is working now, Tony says he paid large legal fees to sort out access and felt he had lesser rights. "I don't see how shared custody would adversely affect my own son. He already has two homes. We could share the costs," he said.

But Sally said her son had a condition which meant he would not have responded well to being shifted from one parent to the other.

Shuttling children between parents also presents logistical difficulties. "I'm a teacher. I know consistency is so important. I know fathers are important, but it was really important for my son in this case that he had a home environment where he was not being juggled from one place to another."