Chaos At the Crossroads: State Created Pain

together.

Chaos at the Crossroads

State Created Pain

Despite the heat the issue of divorce, separation and the welfare of children had been generating for decades, the Australian Government was slow to address the issue. While at the turn of the millennium more   than a million children were listed with the Child Support Agency, an institution as roundly and profoundly despised as the Family Court itself, politicians were reluctant to move into such an emotionally charged and gendered arena. But as one Member of Parliament said, the level of anger in the community was frightening.

The massive wave of supportive media following the then Prime Minister of Australia John Howard’s announcement of an inquiry into joint custody in mid-June of 2003 demonstrated that Australia’s wiliest conservative politicians had hit on a raw nerve. Whatever the faults and frustrations in the prolonged and frustrating path towards shared parenting that was to follow, the inquiry itself produced solid evidence on the solid state of dysfunction prevailing in the courts and bureaucracies dealing with parents who had fallen out with each other; but not with their offspring.

No one reading the transcripts of the Inquiry, which conducted hearings around Australia and took hundreds of submissions, could be left under any illusion about the distress being caused by the prevailing sole-mother custody model.

The most prominent opponents of a rebuttable notion of joint custody were Chief Justice of the Family Court Alastair Nicholson, Elspeth McInnes of the National Council of Single Mothers and Pru Goward, Sex Discrimination Commissioner. All were handsomely paid courtesy of the Australian taxpayer.

Ms Goward played a spoiler role throughout the Inquiry, culminating in comments at the October Hearing at the small town of Wyong on the NSW Central Coast that fathers could hardly expected joint custody when they needed an auto-cue in order to remember the names of their own children.

Goward was heavily criticised from within and without the fatherhood movement for abuse of her office. It made no difference to her conduct.

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission of which she was such a well-known member put in a submission to the inquiry arguing against joint custody, adopting almost identical positions to the women’s groups and claiming that the Child Support formula was fair. The ridiculous claim was made at a time of heightened condemnation of the scheme.

Pru Goward, herself a single mother who the media had always found easy to report, was fresh from a failed bid to convince the government to implement a paid maternity leave scheme; running a tax payer funded campaign which in the end damaged the very government from which she sought support. Once close to the Prime Minister, the relationship between Howard and Goward was rumoured to have cooled.

From the beginning Goward was hostile to the joint custody inquiry, making numerous put-down remarks about fathers.

In July 2003 she told the media: Equal parenting is not the 16 minutes of child play a day that is the average amount of time men spend with their children. By the time of divorce one parent by then has invested so much more time and energy in the relationship with the children.

On another occasion, during a speech at a women's employment conference, Goward complained about the unattractive face of the men's movement focusing on rights rather than responsibilities.

There are men working very long hours, apparently by choice, not accessing family-friendly provisions, but then concerned that their sons have no role models, Goward said.

In theory there is nothing stopping men from accessing part-time working arrangements or flexible work hours. In reality, we do not live in a society which tolerates or venerates men who do part-time work or leave work early to pick up a sick child from school.

One letter writer, Colin Smith in The Daily Telegraph, responded: The reason most men have to work long hours is because their wives or partners do not wish to do so. They would much rather be home with the children and not have to travel, put in long hours and put up with the daily pressures of work. A survey a few years ago indicated that more than 60 per cent of women did not even wish to work part time if they had a choice. Why? Because they would rather be home, thanks very much.

But Goward warned of a possible new gender war unless men shared more of the burden of child rearing, and more of the career sacrifices needed to raise a family.

Shared caring has to start before the divorce, she said. "It could drive exactly the change that the women’s movement wants if it’s done wisely. Equality between men and women has hit a brick wall, and only the engagement of men in the struggle for work and family balance will move equality closer.

Goward said the parliamentary inquiry into joint custody should explore the question of whether men should have to put in equal parenting time while the marriage is intact if they wanted to be more involved after separation. She said the men’s movement wanted 50/50 care arrangements post divorce, without any suggestion that men will have to put in equal parenting time while the marriage is intact, or that they will need to rearrange their lives if they want to be more involved after separation.

A Herald letter writer, Colin Anderson, wrote in response: A child who thrives on the presumption that her father is an equal part of her life before marriage breakdown, whatever the work-family balance, is entitled to the same presumption after marriage breakdown.

But it was the auto-cue comments that provoked the most affront.

Due to its proximity to Sydney, Goward travelled up to Wyong to present her evidence. She said believed introducing a presumption that child-sharing arrangements should be 50-50 would make no difference at all to the outcome of custody disputes, because in the end a guy who is working 60 hours a week does not want the kids. He just can’t. He sees his primary responsibility as earning money. You will not be able to impose this…

Goward said it was unrealistic to expect a father to step into an equal custody arrangement when he might not have been fulfilling such a role prior to separation. You can’t expect a person to step into that role when the child’s 10, having never seen them before, needing an autocue to remember their name.

Sydney’s leading talkback station 2GB reported a meltdown over her comments.

On The Daily Telegraph’s website feedback section one man labeling himself Alan in July asked: How many fathers have to go to court just to see their kids? Most men work hard and long hours. This is for the family.

Another, Brett Kessner, described Goward as a hypocrite and said we live in a society that does not value fatherhood. Another, Wayne Smith, wrote: Pru Goward has not walked in my shoes, I have three children 2x11yrs 1x10yrs and have paid maintenance for many years… It’s about time that men had equal rights… So Pru Goward, there’s only one attitude that needs changing, yours.

One woman writing in support of joint custody said just because society expected men to be the breadwinner didn’t mean they should be punished by the courts.

Another correspondent Shane said he thought it amazing the Sex Discrimination Commissioner continually grouped all men into a single stereotype. Could you imagine what she would say if any man grouped all women into a single stereotype, then proceeded to explain why they are ALL not up to the standard of the other?

Luc van Uffelen wrote: Prior to divorce as a father whilst being on shift work I contributed enormously to the children’s welfare. After divorce the Family Law Court deems that I now can see the children every weekend. I have lost that role as a parent by not being there for them. Divorced fathers are certainly being DISCRIMINATED against. The upcoming changes being reviewed in Parliament hopefully will give equality back to fathers that so rightly deserve it.

But at that Wyong hearing, as at many others, there were moving tales of Family Court disasters to provide some counter-balance to the tax-payer funded mandarins.

One non-custodial woman told the five hour hearing she had spent $230,000 in legal fees and had still not been able to gain reasonable access to her children.

The committee and other politicians were quick to seize on the evidence of non-custodial mothers, whose issues were in many ways identical to non-custodial fathers. Local Federal member Ken Ticehurst said: It proves the case that this is not just an issue for fathers, which is the public perception at the moment.

But despite the mounting body of evidence in favour of change, it was once again the Sex Discrimination Commissioner who got all the mainstream media coverage following the Wyong stop.

In a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald Ian Tuit wrote that Goward’s office should be renamed the Sexist Discrimination Commissioner.

"At a time when people in Australia are working harder and longer than at any other time in our history, it is a very poor effort by the Commissioner not to support and encourage fathers trying to balance work and family commitments. The Commissioner’s remark that working fathers ‘need an autocue to remember their children’s name’ is ludicrous and sexist beyond belief.

"Her statement that separated fathers ‘don’t want the kids’ is patronising and ignores recent research by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, which shows that 74% of non-resident fathers would like to have more contact with their children and 41% of resident mothers reported that they would also like to see more contact between fathers and their children.

How can anyone make these kinds of statements and remain Sex Discrimination Commissioner?

The Shared Parenting Council of Australia put out a press release saying:

"The evidence given by Ms Goward, in reference to the true wishes of men and fathers in Australia, is unsupported by any research and describes the complete opposite position of those fathers who put submissions forward to the current inquiry. Every father's group, church group and grandparent organisations have clearly and unequivocally said that they want to share the care of their children - regardless of the implications to future work patterns.

Many family law 'experts' and feminist contributors to the current custody inquiry have universally opposed the introduction of shared parenting in family law matters, with spurious and weak arguments against its operation, yet when confronted with the appalling outcomes of the current system, they have failed to provide any guidance or solutions that will alleviate the waste, despair and destruction caused by the Family Court's handling of child custody matters in family breakdown situations.

The public hearing phase of the inquiry began on the 28th August 2003 in the Centenary Hall in Greater City of Geelong, an industrial but often scenic centre west of Melbourne. The hearings ran for three hours from 8.30 am. Later that same day the committee moved on to Melbourne.

At first no one knew what to expect. Fathers groups remained sceptical from long experience.

The guest list for the first public hearing did not bode well for fathers and family law reformers, kicking off with the Women’s Information and Referral Exchange, followed