This is a copy of an email circulated to a large mailing list and gives some interesting viewpoints.
Our comments from a 'child safety' perspective are added.
I wanted to respond by explaining the benefits to all of why an AVO style Recover Restoration Orders would protect children from one parent excluding the other unilaterally, upon separation. (nb: does not address the very real occurence of family violence that is the cause of over 60% of seperations)
RCO's to protect children....and mothers ...and fathers ! The Family Court issues Recovery Orders rather promptly, especially if a mother flees from a partner, from what our sources tell us.
Just what the anti shared parenting brigade need to grasp!
If people would recognise that it will only stop once children are protected from having one parent "disqualified" in the first place - ie: with a Recovery of Contact Order, effective immediately and answerable in Court within days (like an AVO). The immediate enforcement of an RCO could be delayed by laying criminal charges with the Police of abuse of neglect of the children. All involved in these discussions should be fully comprehensive of the time delays, the problem of evidence collection and all other matters that can and do prevent the vast majority of crimes against children being prosecuted.
Family Violence allegations would not be allowed to deprive the children of a parent when change overs can be arranged at day care, school or through 3rd paries. It is not the change overs that are a problem. It is what occurs when the children are alone with the parent who is unsafe. This comment fails to recognise this and implies that the only violence is between the adults.
This would mean the parent seeking to exclude the other, would first have to convince a Court that its was in the children's interests. In reality, for non abusive parents, exclusion is not a common occurence.
Not as now, when the excluded parent has to convince a judge that he should be included!, when the status quo of living arrangements have already been established - unilaterally, mostly with the help of an AVO - an excruciating process that takes expert reports, ongoing litigation and sometimes many years of graduated increases in contact to reach a weekend a fortnight, half holidays regime).These comments are outdated if a reading of recent judgments is any guide. AVO's are not held in much regard, the violence being seen as 'situational' as per a recent Family Court report.
The ongoing suffering caused by removing a child's parent with smears and allegations of abuse, comes home to roost with these children growing up to be ; These statistics are taken from old data from the 1970's on fatherlessness. What this data actually says is that there is a disgraceful amount of children who were abandoned by their fathers in those years, before DNA, before enforceable child support. Many criminals and persons with emotional problems report being abused and/or abandoned by their fathers and less often their mothers, when abuse more commonly occurs by the actions of, or in conjunction with, a new male partner. . This is supported by all research into the subject. Lack of a parent does create problems, but much much less than enforced contact with an abusive parent. That is the ultimate betrayal.
5 times more likely to commit suicide;
14 times more likely to commit rape;
9 times more likely to drop out of high school;
10 times more likely to abuse chemicals;
9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution; and
20 times more likely to end up in prison.
Once RCOs can protect children from losing one of their parents, in most cases there's nothing to fight about.
Most applications are brought about by fathers who have been denied equal or sufficient time with there kids so the cases that did get fought over would be the ones where there were real problems with one of the parents. This information is also incorrect according to the statistics and reports. Most cases that come before the court for determination have serious abuse allegations. Most of these cases do NOT end in the alleged abuser being denied contact. These reports are linked on this site.
It protects both parents from being excluded - man and woman alike - not just one of them. This takes away most of the fear of losing the custody battles - a fear that is often exploited by Family Court practitioners..
The reality is that laws are made post the problem - lawyers can only act when and as instructed, and most will give advice based on legislation and precedent when advising clients- these comments are rather like blaming doctors for incurable disease.