With Pauline Hanson calling for the abolition of the Family Court in her (second) maiden speech, the role of family law and the courts in adjudicating our relationships is, for better or worse, being re-examined.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
While the One Nation senator’s views have been widely derided, most recently by Rosie Batty, it is worth considering how family law deals with deeply personal conflicts.
One Nation has attacked the Family Court for the delays parties experience once caught up in the system. For the Family Court to function well and without delays, it also takes understanding and co-operation from the litigants before it.
Judges on a daily basis have to deal with people who have little respect for the law and do not appreciate what a privilege it is to live in a country where the law is upheld.
Orders are made only to be breached, and then everyone is back to court again in a bid to get the recalcitrant litigant to see reason. Litigants refuse to file or are unable to file their documents on time.
Children’s reports must be procured, and valuations of real estate and businesses.
It takes time to deal with these cases, frustrating though that might be.
Perhaps what One Nation needs to remember is that when we go to court in Australia, as opposed to some countries, we know that we will more or less get the same treatment as the man or woman before us or in front of us in the list. Due process must occur, but this takes time.
Joint custody should be the option of choice, One Nation says, and there should be recognition that “a child’s standard of living following divorce cannot be maintained at pre-divorce levels”.
Psychologists and social workers and others all agree joint custody, 50/50 time with mum and dad, does not work for kids. Kids need a solid base; they need to know where they are to sleep from night to night and where their precious things are.
Joint custody is exhausting and unsettling for kids, and while it is all about the best interests of the kids, not about mum or dad’s right to see them, parents generally forget this in their fog of stress and life’s pressures.
One Nation’s policy on child support is clearly influenced by the concerns of men’s and fathers’ rights organisations.
While it is critical to balance the best interests of children and the safety of the women and children who have been subject to domestic violence, these disenfranchised, hurting dads need to be listened to as well.
Equally, I would argue that they need educating that child support is for the children and not for the benefit of the estranged spouse.
While I am adamant that free speech brings with it responsibility as well as freedom to express ourselves, I am inspired by Professor Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia University, that “it is critical to engage with the seemingly intolerant and to hear their point of view and not just brush them aside as being not worth discussion”.
I see this as relevant to the One Nation revival and calls for a respectful exchange about the concerns voiced by the many.
While in the world of the broken-hearted there are often no straightforward solutions, let’s engage in this debate and try to work toward streamlining a system which even the experts say has much room for improvement.
In the end, it is all about protecting kids, and vulnerable women and men.