Associates of Kids In Distress Australia Inc
The parenting of children after separation, the right amount of contact, residency, what is in the child's best interest have been argued for years, with polarized views and various interest groups emerging through time.
Child support costs, costs and practices in litigation and court processes, and judicial independence have all created a fertile, contentious, sometimes fatal, often uniformed and experimental Family Law system.
The idea that shared parenting is the 'right' solution is opposed by those whose actual life experiences with the opposing party have repeatedly shown that it is not possible to negotiate or manage safely or successfully, especially in cases where parties are in 'entrenched' conflict.
How 'entrenched' must violence be before it is an issue that the courts consider 'important'? And how do you 'prove it'? What evidence is required?
The problems intensify when allegations of 'serious abuse' of children are made. How serious does the abuse have to be before the courts will be satisfied sufficiently to make orders that privilege a child's safety over the rights of the parent? What is your definition of 'unacceptable risk' to a child?
Isn't the better question 'What is ACCEPTABLE RISK' for a child to be subjected to by an adult?
What is a 'reasonable belief of risk' in the context of the Family Law Act regarding the decision of a party to contravene a court order on the grounds of protecting a child? What proof will be needed?
How important is the child's version of events?
How effective are state child protection systems?
What is the Court's attitude to contravening court orders?
What is the role and function of an Independent Child Representative, and what can you do if they are not doing their job?
Litigants will find there are no clear, consistent definitions or decisions - and any allegation / belief or experience will be judged subjectively - that is, varying from person to person, jurisdiction and jurisdiction. Litigants will find varying interpretations of laws, inconsistent procedural decisions, great variance in expert opinions, and differences in how courts and registries practice. For failing to meet the subjective tests, inconsistent and often severe penalties may be applied.