Welcome to a forgotten corner of the ancient forest.
A simple review of statistics from the Family Court in Australia will show the overwhelming bias against men when it comes to access and custody of children following divorce.
The Attorney General, Phillip Ruddock said
we will be amending the Family Law Act to refer to the need of both parents to have a meaningful involvement in their childrens' lives and the children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with both of them
How good is that? Sometimes the government gets it right. For too long many men in Australia have had cause only to grieve at the loss of their children. In certain instances children are left with abusive and neglectful mothers and the fathers can only watch, helpless, as their childrens lives are destroyed.
How would you feel if your son or daughter, who you loved more than life itself, was living with their mother who was drug addicted or psychotic and the law prevented you from providing your child with even temporary respite from the nightmare of their existence? This is the reality for some fathers. In some of these case the mothers falsely accuse the father of sexual abuse to protect their own position. Sadly the courts usually choose to believe the mother over the father. Not to put too fine a point on it but men are suiciding because they feel so helpless and discriminated against.
Now men who desparately want to care for their children have the support of the government.
There are many jewels hidden amongst the leaves in this forgotten part of the ancient forest. Spend some time browsing and you are sure to find some. Click here or continue your search below
or read the most recent entries here.Ahem. While it is true that statistics show that women are more likely than men to have primary custody of children after litigated cutody disputes, it is a bit of a leap to say that this is clear cut evidence that the Family Court system is biased against men.
The aim of ensuring best outcomes for everyone is to be applauded and I hope the family relationship centres accomplish what they set out to. Ultimately family law will always be a very difficult area to equip and support because of the emotional nature of it and the importance and consequences of decisions.
Posted by: dan at July 29, 2004 03:21 PMHmmm.....BBQ stopper, just like the other BBQ stopper - work and family - which Howard has never addressed. I'll believe it when I see it.
Posted by: Niall at July 29, 2004 07:24 PMDan,
Saying "women are more likely" understates the situation. Women are almost guaranteed custody if they ask for it, even if they are not the best parent to take on the responsibility.
I have encountered cases where the mother has been drug addicted and neglecting the children and action by the father has failed because the judge ruled that she should keep the children because she was trying to give up and loosing the children would undermine her attempts, never mind the welfare of the children.
Or how about this case. Child welfare removed the children from a drug addicted woman after they were found neglected and malnurished. The father successfully gained custody so he took a retirement package from the armed forces, sold his flat and bought a 3 bedroom house all in order to be able to care for them. 3 months later the mother went to the court and said she has been drug free for 2 weeks, with no proof, and the court gave her back custody of the children.
When he got the children they were psychologically disturbed and after 3 months they were just starting to show signs of healing from the ordeal they had been through. Now this poor man must watch helpless as his children are taken from him to be, all most certainly, reimmersed in the degrading and sordid drug culture.
Noooooo the courts haven't been biased against men, afterall the 95% who loose custody didn't really want it did they?
Posted by: greenman at July 30, 2004 07:48 AMGreenman, not saying that there aren't problems with the system, not saying that it doesn't produce unjust outcomes. Only saying that you can't take a statistical snapshot of a complex system which takes many factors into account and say ergo there is bias against men. There may be bias against men, but that needs to be comprehensively analysed.
I appreciate your anecdotal evidence, and again I think that we need to work to ensure that unjust outcomes are avoided. However, I could equally point out cases where women have received unjust outcomes. But that wouldn't prove that there is a bias against women. And I am sure that you wouldn't suggest that those examples are representative of every case which is adjudicated.
All I am saying is that the media-driven sound bite testimony when talking about legal process and systems suggests that the system is capable of being understood and analysed in those terms. And it is not.
I don't know where your stats come from, but the latest available stats on the family court website say that residence was granted in favour of the mother in 69% of cases with the balance in favour of the father or joint. Stats also indicate that only 6% of cases proceed to adjudication and the balance are determined on the entry of consent orders.
I also know from experience that a vast number of individual litigants (as opposed to corporate or institutional litigants) in all areas of the law come out of litigation (whether determined by consent or judgment) unhappy with the result and feeling like the system has prevented justice being done. I imagine that this would be even more relevant in the family court where other issues highlight the emotion of a case.
I know that no systemic or independent analysis of the Family Court has determined that men do indeed suffer disadvantage in the family court system although there have been several such determinations in relation to particular aspects of the law for women (see for example the ALRC reports on gender equality before the law and particular recommendations regarding domestic violence issues). This is not for lack of submissions by mens groups to various inquiries into the family court.
So if there is "bias", we need to determine that is the case and analyse why this occurs before we can address it properly. The issue of bias for men is being used as a political football by Howard given that the actual proposed amendments have little to do with changing the situation for men, but has a lot to do with alternative dispute resolution and avoiding court litigation (all good things in this area). So announcing the measures with a cover story that the Howard government is looking after men is the same sort of politicking we would otherwise expect from him.
Sorry about the long comment.
Posted by: dan at July 30, 2004 11:25 AMIt is so rare that I inspire a rant (and it is not for the want of trying :-) )
In spite of my simplistic argument I do actually think that there is a bias against men. There is an assumption in our society that women are naturally better parents than men which in todays complex society is fundamentally flawed.
Sadly many judges live insular lives whose values and ideas are the property of an earlier time. Let me cast my mind back to some particularly enlightened comments by senior judges in this domain, something about the beating of women by her husband being OK as long as it was responsible. And how about the finding that rape of a prostitute being not as serious a crime because she was a prostitute.
An enquiry into the fairness of the legal system by a senior practitioner of the legal system, which is what was done, is a bit like Tattersalls investigating problem gambling. The outcomes may be entirely legitimate but they are tainted by the inherent vested interest.
Dan, I understand your discomfort at criticisms of our legal system and it is nice to see your spirited defence. I also acknowledge that I have a distorted view of the subject having spent years counselling caring fathers who have been maltreated and broken by the legal system.
The law must not only be fair but appear to be fair and, from my perspective, in this domain it has, up until now, appeared anything but fair.
Posted by: greenman at July 30, 2004 02:41 PMHey, I am happy to have criticisms of the legal system - there is much to criticise. However where I have problems is the tendency towards simplification of the problems involved, because it leads to just the sort of politicking that Howard has shown in selling these reforms as a boon for men.
Most markedly, this tendency is shown in the "law and order" campaigns which predictably emerge in the lead up to every state and federal election. These sorts of campaigns have led to some of the most damaging and draconian legislation ever enacted, based on popular (uninformed) opinion rather than any real analysis.
I think it is important to advocate for men in the system, and I think that the family law system will face substantial reforms over the next 10 or 15 years to address a whole range of issues.
Posted by: dan at August 2, 2004 09:56 AMOk, so I'm not a man. I am in fact a 17-yr-old girl. (sorry)
(I came across your website while doing some research for an assignment.)
I've got to say, I strongly agree with the point you have made, and that you've done a good job with this website, keep it up.:)
Having been a victim of family violence (inflicted by my evil, psychotic mother) for almost my whole 17 years of living, I can confirm that there truly is a bias against men, and yes, statistics do prove that women are just as abusive as men.
My father endured 17 years of pretty much all forms of abuse; not because he wasn't man enough to fight back but because, How would society percieve it? What was he to do?
If my mother ended up with bruises she could have easily reported it to the police...and frankly, who would they have been more likely to believe?
My dad stayed married to her for our sakes (me and my sister). He couldn't leave us knowing that we would probably get beaten to death, considering that she would definatly have had custody of us.
To this day, after having reported a few life-threatening incidents to the police, she is now on probation. And social welfare has taken her from us (thank god). But... the police still haven't perminantly solved anything.
After pleading guilty of attempting murder, she is set free and is now working in a school, teaching young children.
Not only are those children at risk but nothing has been done to stop my mother coming back and stalking us.
What society can't swallow is the fact that not all men are bad, and that not all women are good and capable of looking after and caring for children. Without parole, custody is ALWAYS given to the mother.....regardless of any circumstances. Unless....the children are old enough to have a say, which unfortunately for some, isn't the case.
That is my point. The government need to consider stuff like that.
Sonya
Stumble It!