Thoughts guys?Net widens on family violence
The definition of domestic violence will be expanded to include emotional manipulation, withholding money and harming the family pet under controversial changes to family law.
Women's groups argue the changes tip the balance of family law back towards putting the safety of children first, while men's rights groups fear they will rob children of time with both parents.The changes, which become law on Thursday, for the first time broaden the definition of violence beyond physical abuse to other damaging actions , including:
Stalking;
Repeated derogatory taunts;
Intentionally damaging or destroying property; and
Preventing someone having contact with family and friends.
Advertisement: Story continues below Under the changes, the Family Court will be required to ask parents if there was abuse or a threat of abuse in the relationship.
The federal government believes this change will encourage more victims to raise the problem as many are too scared to bring it up, worried they would be unable to prove abuse.
As well, the court would be required to ask whether children were exposed to abuse from a parent, and this would be taken into consideration when hearing custody cases. The Family Law Act has been amended to say: ''A child is exposed to family violence if the child sees or hears family violence or otherwise experiences the effects of family violence.''
The federal Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, who has lobbied for the changes, said much family violence remained ''invisible to the legal system'' an d she wanted to send a message that it had no place in Australian society.
"Unfortunately, more than half of the parenting cases that come to courts involve allegations by one or both parties that the other has been violent," Ms Roxon said.
In NSW, police recorded 26,673 domestic violence assaults last year, up from 26,084 the previous year.
The chief executive officer of the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children, Terese Edwards, said the changes reflected a more contemporary understanding of abusive behaviour. ''It clearly sets out what behaviour is unacceptable, including physical and emotional abuse.''
Ms Edwards said she was pleased to see the changes addressed the exposure of children to family violence, which increased the risk of ''behavioural and learning difficulties in the short term, and of developing mental health problems later in life''.
The changes are a response to a 2006 overhaul of family law by the Howard government, which prioritised shared parenting. Several studies of the changes showed children were insufficiently protected from violence and abuse and, in some cases, were forced to spend time with a parent who had been abusive.
The shared parenting provisions have not been rolled back. Instead, the federal government hopes to sidestep this by placing a greater emphasis on children's safety where abuse is a factor.
Barry Williams, president of the Lone Fathers' Association and a key campaigner for the 2006 changes, is concerned that courts will now be too quick to believe allegations of abuse.
The family law expert Patrick Parkinson, from the faculty of law at the University of Sydney, said courts could become distracted by definitions of behaviour and the changes could make legal battles more expensive and drawn out as parents argued about the nature of relationship breakdowns. ''But it is to be hoped that a commitment to child-focused practice, and the protection of everyone from violence and abuse, will prevail,'' he said.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political ... z1wh9DHaVG
Family violence
Family violence
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Family violence
Already done in the US; denials in progress elsewhere.
Re: Family violence
Multi thread trolling in progress...
Does that mean that you're contemplating bringing this into even more threads?We'll see...
Re: Family violence
The whole idealistic 'shared parenting' overhaul was not well implemented, the legislation was flawed, the enactment was woeful, and it wasn't necessarily in the best interests of the children.The changes are a response to a 2006 overhaul of family law by the Howard government, which prioritised shared parenting. Several studies of the changes showed children were insufficiently protected from violence and abuse and, in some cases, were forced to spend time with a parent who had been abusive.
The shared parenting provisions have not been rolled back. Instead, the federal government hopes to sidestep this by placing a greater emphasis on children's safety where abuse is a factor.
Barry Williams, president of the Lone Fathers' Association and a key campaigner for the 2006 changes, is concerned that courts will now be too quick to believe allegations of abuse.
The family law expert Patrick Parkinson, from the faculty of law at the University of Sydney, said courts could become distracted by definitions of behaviour and the changes could make legal battles more expensive and drawn out as parents argued about the nature of relationship breakdowns. ''But it is to be hoped that a commitment to child-focused practice, and the protection of everyone from violence and abuse, will prevail,'' he said.
Some of the rulings that have been made supposedly in the 'best interest of the children' have been ridiculous - either placing unrealistic burdens and constraints on one or both parents, or not taking into account long term stability and long term benefit for the children. It is not always 'in the best interest of the children' - long term - to have 'shared parenting', even if they honestly don't have issues with either parent. Butit gets even more detrimental to the children when they do have issues with a parent, or when the two 'new' households have different parenting styles and there is conflict created by this, or when the parents have their own unresolved issues and there is the opportunity to relay those issues through the children. Or when the parents are accusing each other of issues, whether or not those issues are real. And when it is involving family courts and lawyers, including court appointed children's lawyers, and maybe court ordered psychologists, then it is constantly creating environment sthat are not in the children's best long term interest. And then through the court it must be resolved in a manner that the court must deem to be the best interest of the child, even if it is not necessarily in accordance with what the child wants.
And then there are the children who realise how well they can play certain issues to their advantage ...
The courts are already getting bogged down with definitions of behaviour etc. And the restraining orders.domestic violence orders/aggravated violence orders (the name depends on where - what state - they were taken out) etc are able to be obtained so easily already, and are already being used as weapons rather than the genuine protection they wdere intended for. There are too many cases of parents taking out DVO's against each other, either to minimise the order taken out by the other parent, or as some other tactical measure, and in those instances the waters get very muddy indeed.
The whole family law system needs a radical overhaul itself - the court action is slow and often only benefitting the lawyers, or those with the money to keep going back through the courts time and time again. The current legal aid system also needs a lot of work to be the real help it was meant to be for low cost/no cost assistance for both parents.
Specifically re family violence/abuse: Adding a few more labels that they can use and misuse isn't going to help - I agree with the quote from Peter Parkinson above (althought I don't agree with everything he says, and disagree strongly with a lot of what he says relating to marriage and children's wellbeing etc).
And the more family violence issues are used simply as weapons in child access/family court matters, the more it devalues the issues of real family violence that do exist. And in terms of real abuse - emotional abuse was already recognised, as was financial abuse etc. My understanding is that they have now expanded on the categories so that manipulation is now separated from other forms of emotional abuse, and withholding money is now a specific category separate from other financial abuse. The only 'new' one is the abuse of pets, which previously could be generally addressed under other labels but is now specifically recognised as a form of abuse separate from the other categories. Anything that helps to define violence and abuse is a good thing. However getting hung up on the labels and not addressing the issue of people misusing the broad spectrum of labels only makes it harder for real victims to be properly heard.
Is that enough thoughts, Gob?
Life is like photography. You use the negative to develop.
Re: Family violence
Brilliant insights, thanks Alice.
I wonder if any of our legal types here will venture a view too.
I wonder if any of our legal types here will venture a view too.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”