The Family Court - SOLUTIONS

by Jim Bagnall - April 2004

This article was written for Aucklands' Flat White magazine. Republished here with permission.

ACCESS

Access is a nasty word that implies a restriction of accessibility rather than a gain. The word 'access' is used in the 'Family' Court to show that one parent cannot see their own child on a regular basis.

The contributing parent with access to his child has solutions or formulas for access imposed on him by the court. Most access solutions are similar and not based on the need a child has to keep a loving relationship with their father. For example, a typical access solution would be every other weekend and half the holidays. One cap fits all in the 'Family' Court. Up to 92% of custodial parents are mothers (No stats available).

Further to this, if the custodial parent alleges anything that can be interpreted by the law as domestic violence e.g. a telephone call, access is immediately transformed into supervised access. Supervised access equals no sharing of food, no presents and no photos - just a guilt ridden periodic detention-like environment that cannot rebuild the lovingness and freedom that used to exist between father and child.

I see these parameters placed upon the contributing parent on a daily basis as a McKenzie friend and a support person for fathers.

IT'S ALL SECRET FROM YOU ISN'T IT?
But you hear stories and you don't know if they're true.
BECAUSE THE COURT IS SECRET!

Nick Smith (I think it is fair to say) became even more contemptuous of this 'court' whilst waiting for his conviction and sentencing for standing up for a child's right to be with his parents.

WHAT IF WE DIDN'T HAVE A COURT?

What if we took out the legal profession and all the LEGAL ADVERSERIAL nature of the court?

WHAT IF WE HAD A TRIBUNAL?

And what if this Tribunal said, "A child has a right to a loving bond with both biological parents."

And what if the Tribunal said, "No lawyers"?

And what if the Tribunal said, "No untestable allegations"?

And what if the Tribunal said to both parents, "Get a parenting plan out within 5 to 6 weeks of separation."

"And if you can't do that, accept mediation counselling and possibly education to help you achieve the above parenting plan."

"And if you can't do that, a Tribunal will help you decide based on shared parenting."

SURELY YOUR CHILDREN ARE WORTH THAT MUCH EFFORT.

What would you say to the above plan? Or do you want to destroy the other ex-partner as the parent of your child? And what does that say about your choices?

IT'S SO EASY TO DO THAT AT PRESENT IN OUR 'FAMILY' COURT.

Maybe you've heard of the 'glass ceiling'. For those who don't know, it's when women get to be high up in their profession e.g. they become Prime Minister or Governor General, etc.

Well, men are looking for the 'glass door'. It's when fathers have normal and loving bonds with their children and their children have loving bonds with dad's family as well. A Tribunal can achieve this for children.

A TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED IN AUSTRALIA

... With no lawyers but with mediation and counselling and parenting plans. But if you want to carry on the war, a Tribunal will sort it out for you based upon shared parenting as a fall back position.

Do I have to say that, in Australia, this is opposed by the legal profession, the psychologists and various other members of the present gravy train and their hangers on? Some feminist politicians find that the new recommendations go against their anti-family agenda.

Another recommendation the Australians are making is that a group called CONTACT be expanded. CONTACT, with the permission of parents, talks to the children about their feelings and thoughts on separation. These thoughts and feelings are recorded and placed in front of their parents at mediation. Often the parents are so stunned by what their children feel and think that this helps them get their parenting together for the children's future.

ISN'T THAT WHAT THIS PROCESS SHOULD BE ALL ABOUT?

Recently, JUDGE DOOGUE has described the adversarial system we have now, and that she has supported enthusiastically for the last ten years, as SOCIAL EXPERIMENTATION. I have to say that her words make my blood boil on behalf of the 70,000 devalued children who have passed unseen through the 'Family' Court. And what about the countless fathers who no longer have any contact with their children or even worse, who have taken their own lives after being in the 'Family' Court?

Your choices are clear - either you have the democratic and legal right to try and destroy the other parent of your child through a dubious legal process OR you support a new, less biased, less adversarial process as they are doing in Australia.

Does your child have the right to contact with both parents? And for your child, isn't this called LOVE and involvement? And once a parent, always a parent.

---

Jim Bagnall can be contacted on (09) 815 0307. He does not have email.

A news item about his work titled 'Advocating for children growing up without a father' was published recently in the Central Leader.