Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Equal Time Parenting - Shared Parenting Council communication to the Attorney Generals office

An email sent to the Attorney General Office recently explores some initiatives and seeks information on four key issues.

Kym I know the AG has recently met with Geoff Holland on 23rd January and that a range of initiatives were discussed.

I am informed he found the AG to be quite approachable in the meeting, and had a constructive conversation on a few related topics.

The Shared Parenting Council is interested in some of the concepts and discussions put forward at that meeting including the idea that those with existing orders made prior to July 2006 might attend a relationship centre to re work possible changes to existing orders. There was suggestion that a reasonable fee might be paid ($2000.00) but also that a legislative amendment might be needed to allow cases that did not complete successfully at the FRC would have some chance of success at court.

This email is to explore a few matters:

The Full Court of the Family Court will be handing down a decision shortly on a number of issues relating to the new legislation.
Has that happened Kym? Was it the Goode v Goode Full Bench FC judgement which was definitely positive excepting the DV interpretation w.r.t untested evidence - this was clearly wrong and the basis for the court's opinion, i.e. the references they cite, appear NOT to exist.

When are we likely to see some statistics on how things are tracking especially in the FMC's as they seem to be quite receptive to the new law changes.?

As you know Family first supports the introduction of a rebutable presumption of joint residency for children.

The Council accepted the detailed commentary about the disadvantages of the rebutable presumption of joint residency for children but has never given up on the "Presumption of Equal Parenting Time". We agree not every one can have 50/50 and many don't want it and can't execute such a  regime. If any parent is able and willing to do parenting half the time, they should be allowed to do it. If any parent cannot manage parenting half the time, a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time does not prevent them from negotiating whatever parenting time is suitable for them. On the other hand, if we do not have a clear "Presumption of Equal Parenting Time" there will be no guarantee for the parent who is able and willing to parent half the time to have that opportunity in the eyes of the court.

I am reasonably satisfied with section 65DAA, particularly as some of the judgements I have read are now clearly lending great weight to that section and without that key component in the Act (All of us spent a long time together working that section up) we would have not had anywhere near the opportunity to gain more time.

What is the Governments view on any proposed additional amendments to move to  a  "Presumption of Equal Parenting Time".

and finally in relation to the Repackaged Brie observations in Cairns.

Have you any listing or data either anecdotal or factual on the responses from various courts to the changes since July 2006. I would like to obtain any commentary for discussions with some of the House of Reps members shortly.

Wayne Butler
Executive Secretary
Shared Parenting Council of Australia

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
What is the difference between the JPA (Joint Parenting Association) / Family First model of a rebutable presumption of joint residency for children , a Rebutable Presumption of Equal Parenting Time and Presumption of Equal Parenting Time

Is the word "Rebutable: the issue? What wording can we all agree on?

Or is it all semantics anyway?

Family First supports a Rebuttable Presumption of Joint Residency (or they say equal parenting time) so why did we fail to get that passed in the Senate?

Family First supports the introduction of a rebuttable presumption of joint residency for children after a relationship breakdown, so that both parents can have the maximum meaningful involvement in their children's life, both in terms of time and their parental responsibilities.

This is essentially the same as a presumption of equal parenting time I would have thought. Has the detail of the word "rebutable" made a rod for our backs?

 Is it time to promote simply the plain english wording of a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time O_o


Site Director

Wording

Unfortunately the wording has a great 'perception' issue factor for policitians. Shared, Equal and 50/50 can all be interpreted in different ways. Likewise the term rebuttable will send some scurrying to the bunkers because of inherent misunderstanding of its usage or the perception of how it may be misued

The matter of wording is not a matter of semantics or academic interest - because it causes confusion amongst politicians. If everyone could agree on the same wording (and their intpretation of it) then the sum of the message to politicians might be greater than its parts - as it is; the message is basically the same but by presenting it in different ways much of the strength of the argument is reduced.








Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
So you appear to be saying that the literal meaning is the same .. being more time .. and that removal of rebuttable will allow such radical concept to pass more easily as it is one less word to digest and savour to the extreme (As most are it seems in legislative review) It could be as simple as that... :o

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
Secretary_SPCA said
So you appear to be saying that the literal meaning is the same .. being more time .. and that removal of rebuttable will allow such radical concept to pass more easily as it is one less word to digest and savour to the extreme (As most are it seems in legislative review) It could be as simple as that… :o
 

The literal ameaning is the same. I am not advocating the removal of any words. What I am saying is that with so many variations of wording about a similar issue the politicians are looking at each 'model' as multiple variations and looking for the 'worms' in each apple.

Different wording in differnet proposals also implies disunity between the various organisations

One set of wording from everybody




Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets