Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Proposed Revision of Paragraph 60CC (3) (c ) designed to find fault in parents

The revision of 60CC (3) (c) would unfairly discriminate against parents who previously worked to support their family

In a recent news topic published on the FLWG and widely reported last week, the Secretary of the Shared Parenting Council of Australia made a number of comments about the proposed legislation that the Federal Attorney General has introduced.
Wayne Butler, Secretary of the Shared Parenting Council said
Existing Section 60CC appears to have been left intact; which is an area where we had fully supported the existing Act.

    60CC
    Primary considerations
    (2) The primary considerations are:
    (a) the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the childs parents; and
    (b) the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.

However it is s60CC (3) (c ) that is problematic and deserves scrutiny and revision to the existing section.

    Paragraph 60CC (3) (c )

    (c ) the willingness and ability of each of the childs parents to facilitate, and encourage, a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent;

Is a fundamental and principal of the 2006 reforms that must be preserved.

The new provisions are:

    18 Paragraph 60CC(3)(c )
    Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
    (c ) the extent to which each of the childs parents has taken, or
    failed to take, the opportunity:
    (i) to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and
    (ii) to spend time with the child; and
    (iii) to communicate with the child;
    (ca) the extent to which each of the childs parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parents obligations to maintain the child;

failed to take, the opportunity?
I agree and comment further

The Governments proposed revision of 60CC(3) will support the power imbalance which occurs during separation when one parent removes the children, often geographically far from home and denies contact to the other parent, usually the father. The opportunity to spend time with and communicate with the child is denied yet could be claimed or construed to mean a level of disinterest by the parent toward the welfare of his children. This clause would ignore a parental abduction by projecting the fault (of removal and denial of contact) onto the the alienated parent, and then proceed to further limit that parents time lived with his children even though he is powerless due to the abduction.

This clause is not bound by time limits; in fact it expands time and would allow judges to inquire into the pre-separation marital and parenting arrangements and the division of labour within the privacy of the home and family. These arrangements are private, agreed between the spouses and operate at the time in the best interests of the children and parents alike. However many of these arrangements are null and void after separation as both parents must re-design their lives, negotiate new living and work arrangements centric to their childrens needs. The new clause 60CC(3) would unjustly penalise parents and children by a retrospective judgement of past parental involvement and orders would be made that tended to repeat those arrangements into the future. Significantly for fathers who work, the court would use past parenting time and involvement to restrict future parenting time. The judgement and ordering of reduced parenting time based on the parents previous sacrifices to support the family denies the new reality of both fathers and mothers having a fresh opportunity to shape their working lives around being present for and residing with their children.

]The original section the willingness and ability of each of the childs parents to facilitate, and encourage, a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent is forward looking, aspirational, testing the degree to which both parents are focused on their childrens needs and fundamental best interest to stay in relationship with the other parent.

The new clause the extent to which each of the childs parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity: is couched in the negative, and is designed to tease out reasons why the parents and their children should not enjoy shared parenting time post the separation. The clause is self defeating by finding reasons to fail the parents for carrying out their past joint parenting arrangements and parenting patterns.

Edward Dabrowski

Federal Director  -  Shared Parenting Council of Australia
I thought the Secretary's post in relation to these matters was excellent.

I firmly believe that 'parental alienation' should be included in the definition of 'child abuse'.

The inclusion of the term 'fear of violence' - or words to that effect - is a problem. Really - what does that mean?

Are they repealing section 60CC (4) becuase doesn't section 60CC (4) already cover this the proposed amendments to section 60CC(3)?

Section 60CC(4) said

(4)  Without limiting paragraphs (3)© and (i), the court must consider the extent to which each of the child's parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, his or her responsibilities as a parent and, in particular, the extent to which each of the child's parents:

                     (a)  has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity:

                              (i)  to participate in making decisions about major long‑term issues in relation to the child; and

                             (ii)  to spend time with the child; and

                            (iii)  to communicate with the child; and

                     (b)  has facilitated, or failed to facilitate, the other parent:

                              (i)  participating in making decisions about major long‑term issues in relation to the child; and

                             (ii)  spending time with the child; and

                            (iii)  communicating with the child; and

                     (c )  has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent's obligation to maintain the child.

          (4A)  If the child's parents have separated, the court must, in applying subsection (4), have regard, in particular, to events that have happened, and circumstances that have existed, since the separation occurred.


4MYDAUGHTER
I'm new at all this, so I hope I'm not out of order.  All the advice I've been given to-date about parenting orders is that if my ex solemnly declares he had a "road to Damascus" epiphany about his desire to share care equally, it won't matter what went on before and he will almost certainly get equal care immediately (that's from 2 private lawyers, legal aid and a community law centre). 

So my ex has spent around 4 months in the past 14 months holidaying overseas by himself; he was happy to leave most the decision-making to me until we split - then he set out to cancel the kids' therapies and extracurricular activities, he's withheld money for specialist medical appointments - and he's gloated at me how he's going to make sure I never get a cent from him for anything.

This amendment would put a bit of onus on him to prove he's genuine, and I would be able to refer to his past actions in asking for a different arrangement or a long transition period up front or something.  I can appreciate why it could be worrying to working parents trying to get a good outcome where their exs are uncooperative.  But at the other end of the spectrum, where the working parent is the problematic one, doesn't this amendment even things up?

Libs back Family Law backdown

THE Coalition has declared it is now likely to support Labor's radical changes to family law Libs back Family Law backdown

This "opposition" backflip is embarrassing. The Government could have been forced to face an electorate of 80-90% supporting equal shared parenting with 1 independent vote - from MP Rob Oakeshott.  A referendum is all that is needed. Instead Mr Abbott manipulates a challenge to his own leadership - enough to bring back Howard.

It does not take a genius to work out the effect of the Family Law "improvements". The removal of the moderating term "reasonable" when considering fear of family violence means that if the mother says she is fearful then the father has committed family violence, according to the new expanded "Family Court" definition.

In short the Father is guilty until proven innocent. The presumption of shared parental responsibility and right to meaningful relationship is rebutted without evidence. You lose your kids by default in the court process - guilty or not guilty.

This invitation to strategic abuse of process is encouraged by the removal of any penalties for knowingly false allegations, namely the repeal of s117AB (costs) and the removal of s60CC (3)(c ), the friendly parent condition,

"the willingness and ability of each of the childs parents to facilitate, and encourage, a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent"

with the superfluous words of s60CC(4),

" (c ) the extent to which each of the childs parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity:
(i) to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and
(ii) to spend time with the child; and
(iii) to communicate with the child;
(ca) the extent to which each of the childs parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parents obligations to maintain the child;"

In effect the presumption of shared parental responsibility has been replaced by the presumption that the Mother will offer an opportunity to participate in parental responsibilities - disturbingly there does not seem to be any consequence for not sharing.

The removal of the friendly parent provisions re-opens the door to parental abduction and alienation as acceptable custody strategy and, profitably for lawyers, forces the matter to go to trial to prove innocence of family violence with the inevitable status quo result.

schmidty said
I'm new at all this, so I hope I'm not out of order.
Thank you for the post and putting another point of view in relation to 60CC. I would also refer you to Section 60CC(4) which 4mydaughter has made mention of and pointed out.

What I am very concerned about is the proposed wording around the extent to which each of the childs parents has taken, or     failed to take, the opportunity:… Many separating parents do not get an opportunity and that is the problem. Where they have had the opportunity and that has been problematic you role on into 60 CC(4). So iot is already there. Why change perfectly working legislation?

The changes in 60CC will further support a wayward parent who does not want to allow any opportunity after separating.
schmidty said
All the advice I've been given to-date about parenting orders is that if my ex solemnly declares he had a "road to Damascus" epiphany about his desire to share care equally, it won't matter what went on before and he will almost certainly get equal care immediately (that's from 2 private lawyers, legal aid and a community law centre).
Equal time care requires a lot of cooperative working. If it is not possible because of various circumstances than it is not possible and those circumstances include the available parenting time, working hours, transport and local arrangements near school and the list goes on. It is not an automatic given by any means. I am not sure why you would suggest it would be given "immediately".
schmidty said
So my ex has spent around 4 months in the past 14 months holidaying overseas by himself; he was happy to leave most the decision-making to me until we split - then he set out to cancel the kids' therapies and extracurricular activities, he's withheld money for specialist medical appointments - and he's gloated at me how he's going to make sure I never get a cent from him for anything.

This amendment would put a bit of onus on him to prove he's genuine, and I would be able to refer to his past actions in asking for a different arrangement or a long transition period up front or something. I can appreciate why it could be worrying to working parents trying to get a good outcome where their exs are uncooperative. But at the other end of the spectrum, where the working parent is the problematic one, doesn't this amendment even things up?
s60CC (4) already has that onus. what do you suggest then we are we getting by changing 60CC(3)(c )?

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
 
I think the silliness of the proposed amendments is obvious, especially around the definition of "family violence.

The prosed amendment says
4AB Definition of family violence etc.

15 (1) For the purposes of this Act, family violence means violent,
threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls
a member of the persons family (the family member), or causes
the family member to be fearful.



In the SMH a couple of days ago was a story about the problems associated with compulsory vacination of schoolgirls with Gardasil, the HPV vaccine.

SMH said
SCHOOLGIRLS were so frightened and anxious about getting vaccinated against cervical cancer that their reaction ''bordered on hysteria'', a new research paper shows.

The fear was so extreme that girls began crying, screaming and fainting during school vaccination days.


Now, it's a no-brainer that Gardasil is being administered for the best possible motives, yet if I, as a father, were to force my daughter to undergo a process, regardless of how well-intentioned, that made her "fearful", regardless of whether her fear is justified, I would be liable to be labelled "violent" and potentially subject to an order preventing me from having anything to do with her. In other words, schools are being given more credit for having the interests of children at heart than parents are, which is patently ridiculous.

As a parent who is still, 11 years down the track, dealing with an ex-wife who seems to be slipping further and further into some form of paranoid neurosis, I am extremely fearful that if such a definition became law, I would have to face yet more court action ( 6 court matters to date, all brought by the ex, including 2 attempts to get a DVO). I'm already taking advice, just in case.

I can only hope that the opposition see the sense in blocking a law change that encourages legal action and does nothing to address the mental health issues that are often behind the problems, as well as giving a very powerful weapon to those same mentally-ill people to use against their ex-partners, to nobody's benefit.

If such an amendment were enacted, it would place an enormous burden on DV services and lawyers to act as filters, which is not a role they have shown much capacity to play, or interest in taking on. For example, I spoke to a woman at WAVSS here in Brisbane and asked her how she assessed whether a person was an appropriate candidate for their service. Her answer: "If she comes to us and says she is a victim of violence, we believe her." End of story, no further assessment carried out. Great…
Same assessment process in Sutherland NSW Craigo
please excuse my ignorance in these (legal jargon) matters … interpretting these 'laws' from a (fiened) position of a judge doesn't come naturally.

I certainly understand the grievances and concerns as they've been posted.  It does seem they're wanting to put the onus on the parents to do the right thing, which seems odd, given usually when a couple have brought their 'dance' to the court 'dance floor', they're both grasping for kids/trying to shield kids/help them/wanting access to them etc … I didn't think it was the norm for the 'dance' to arise where one goes to court because they can't get the other parent to help them make important decisions in kids lives..???
Note: I am imagining that with the 'substitute' wording, would it be hard to show?  (if we're considering PA) it's fairly easy to present repeated requests for access, emails ignored, copies of loving letters to the child, gifts… which shows what you've tried to do, and the result (abusive emails/text messages/no access/recorded 'telling' phone messages) is proof of the games etc…?  Doesn't this show that which the original 60CC(3)c asks for - NO Willingness … to facilitate … etc.
____________________________________________________________

(c ) the willingness and ability of each of the childs parents to facilitate, and encourage, a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent;

Is a fundamental and principal of the 2006 reforms that must be preserved.

The new provisions are:

    18 Paragraph 60CC(3)(c )
    Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
    (c ) the extent to which each of the childs parents has taken, or
    failed to take, the opportunity:
    (i) to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and
    (ii) to spend time with the child; and
    (iii) to communicate with the child;
    (ca) the extent to which each of the childs parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parents obligations to maintain the child;

___________________________________________

4AB Definition of family violence etc.

15 (1) For the purposes of this Act, family violence means violent,
threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls
a member of the persons family (the family member), or
causes
the family member to be fearful.



I see some form of logic relating to concerns about 'anything and everything' can be shown as violence… but doesn't this allow the under the radar forms of PA, psychological abuse to be revealed too?  I mean, perpetrators of 'true violence' do need to be filtered out after all!  And if phsychological violence isn't allowed to be investigated, PA perps won't be found.

The school girls vaccination is a great eg of children's 'reactions' to things, that can be misconstrued as 'someone being abusive'… and is exactly what a PA perp does, twisting the most simple and innocent of actions or words… the only way I can disassociate that eg from family violence is that 'this' is 'an ongoing action'.  If it's not 'situational violence' (one off or just occurring because of a difficult separation) then it will be able to be shown that it has been occurring for some time (ie. DV). 

Personally I think it's imperative that we get one of the most obvious points across in these situations ie. In an article by Dr Amy Baker (PA expert) she describes: "…research and theory on abused and traumatized children consistently highlight that these child victims are quick to absolve the abusive parent of all blame and express quite strongly the wish to be reunified with that parent (e.g., Herman, 1992)."

I think this should be able to force them back to the position that CHILDREN WANT AND NEED BOTH PARENTS…(mind you, I'm not necessarily advocating presumption of shared care… I'm on the fence at this point, but this, is not my point) NO one should be permanently separating kids from parents - the immediate need (while we wait for them all to GET IT) is for there to be extensive amounts of (FREE) child contact centres all over the country (interim) because 1. they are 'scarce' and 2. it's the only way to IMMEDIATELY combat the (detrimental) PA 'time factor'.

…o.k  I'm bracing myself…!!!

All Target Parents of Alienation, lets Unite to make an impact where it's needed for our lost children ..  http://bringingpeace2alienatedchildren.blogspot.com/
I am a fence sitter on the proposed amendments.
On one hand I have several male friends who have had the DV card played on them so well by manipulative ex's and on the other I got through mine, for me it was a higher emotional abuse than physical and maybe I am still making excuses for him but I never saw the physical abuse as frequent enough to be counted as a victim in that way.

Anyway from my side I see it as a good step forward as I have had the family courts snub there nose at my experience with ex because I decided to show my children I could stand proud, leave that relationship and not have to be supported by anyone else - I didn't want to show my children the life of motels and refuges to escape the abuse instead I saved and got away on my own two feet, I built a business, I am doing uni now and feel proud to show my children I can survive but the courts see all this as a sign of the abuse not being real. So the new laws would be a welcome relief, my battle is nearly over now - my children are finally protected and their own abuse is being dealt with in the courts but I see the amendments as a small victory for those women that can stand up and do it on their own to get away from the abuse.

From the other side of the coin I can see the torment it will put on men falsely accused. I know one women who would probably claim economical abuse because her husband withheld money to pay bills and food because else she would have spent it on pokies, she tries to manipulate this already that he never let her have 'spending money'
@Vipashana have you done 'vipassana'?
 
 
other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the persons family (the family member), or causes the family member to be fearful.

 Just a thought….
 
 If a parent engaged in 'parental alienation' and caused a child to be fearful of the other parent, would that then constitute 'family violence' under the proposed amendments?

4MYDAUGHTER
Just a little story.

Rent home with girlfriend, she has no funds you've been practically living together for 12 months 3 nights a week at yours 4 nights a week at hers, you pay the bond etc.

you live together for a 9 months and you find  she has been swapping naked pics with someone else. You end the relationship. You wish to remain in the home as she has not paid a cent in rent. She advises she will move out as soon as she can. You give her a little slack afterall she has a child from a previous relationship and you dont want to be seen as having put them out on the street.

You now seperate food  etc as you are no longer in a relationship and do not wish to fund her by continuing to purchase  all the groceries.

A few days later whilst having a shower after coming home from work someone walks into the bathroom and anounces they are the police and for you to step out of the shower immediately.

You do this and a policeman hands you a towel for modesty whilst advising you he is there to serve you with a domestic violence order which amongst other things requires you to remove yourself from the premises within 1 hour.

he also advises you are required to attend the police station in regards to further enquiries.

1 hour to move out all youre belongings, which just happens to be pretty much all the furniture , crockery pots pans  etc etc.

You take what you can load it into the car whilst  said police officer searches  through all youre belongings for firearms.

Of course he finds no firearms as you have none  and never did have any ever.

Police officer directs you to drive youre car to nearest police station as you cannot leave it and return for it later due to  domestic violence order.

Apon arriving at police station they now request fingerprints and a dna sample. Saying no to this means they lock you up for the night and get a judge to order you provide a sample in the morning.

The officer then takes you into an interview room  and starts questioning you about specific dates. Over and over and over. Get something wrong  they claim you are guilty. after completing the interview they then advise you what the complaint is  even though you have worked it out from there line of questioning.

The other party has stated you have been violent threated with a rifle and raped her.

Funnily enough no rifle , no history of violence ever and the other party remained in the home for months after the alleged incident occurred.

Moving on 3 months later you have a hearing. the other party fails to attend  however sends an email to the court withdrawing charges but asking interim dvo be extended to permanent.

Judge throws out the matter.

After 2 years you start a new relationship and 2 years later move in  with this person. after a few months police knock on youre door  and same rubbish again.

This time now showing a history as you have a previous interim dvo albeit dismissed  and very similar complaint. You spend several thousands in legal bills and  on the day of hearing other party does not show  sending email to court claiming fear of intimidation and fear  being  in vicinity of youreself.

gets thrown out again. you learn youre lesson. a very expensive lesson mind you. its not only cost you thousands in legal fees each time you have also lost all your possessions twice and you are so emotionally scarred you can no longer have  any relationships other than use and abuse casual affairs.

You cannot enter a relationship asking the other person if they have ever taken out dvo's on previous partners, getting them to sign an agreement on what belongs to whom is meaningles as you cannot return to collect items for 3 months by which time  they have moved etc and if you  try to locate youre property to seek action in civil court to have these items returned they just go back and get another interim dvo rubberstamped so even if you win at civil court you cannot collect goods.

Yes there are women out there who are abused, as there are men who are abused.

I would hazard a guess that no man has had a dvo against a woman rubberstamped whereby she has had to move out in 1 hour.

Its just how our system works at the moment and anything that assists this system to further erode the person being complained about without evidence is surely assisting in creating an unfair and unjust society.



just my rant for the day

You can fool some of the people some of the time but you cant fool all of the people all of  the time unless they work for CSA and youre a Payee:)
4mydaughter… I have not 'directly' done Vipassana, but close to it for past 10 yrs.

If a parent engaged in 'parental alienation' and caused a child to be fearful of the other parent, would that then constitute 'family violence' under the proposed amendments?"

Absolutely, I say.  But depends on who's interpretting it doesn't it!  .. and how one comes across.  There's a High need to let 'evidence' speak for itself in court.

But I still say we need a more direct reference to PA in the Law. 

Q.  is anyone aware of anyone (or group) making a DIRECT approach to the Govt or an organisation about proposals to address PA (in Australia)?

All Target Parents of Alienation, lets Unite to make an impact where it's needed for our lost children ..  http://bringingpeace2alienatedchildren.blogspot.com/
I've done 17 10-day vipassana courses.

Actually, with that wording, I don't think PA needs to be directly addressed because its substantially covered. In fact, I think its better than directly addressing PA.

Under the proposed amendment and definition, if a parent behaves in an alienating manner, fills a child's head with unsubstantiated non-sense about the other parent, such that it causes that child to be in fear of the other parent…. I reckon you could rightly file a Form 4 Notice of Family Violence (or Child Abuse). 

4MYDAUGHTER
BRILLIANT..!

Brilliant awareness (of legals) and Brilliant awareness raising activities..!!

I like your mindset…

All Target Parents of Alienation, lets Unite to make an impact where it's needed for our lost children ..  http://bringingpeace2alienatedchildren.blogspot.com/
Leroy, been there and seen that also.

There are some nice people out there so I hope you find them

McLellanism

Craigo said
I can only hope that the opposition see the sense in blocking a law change that encourages legal action and does nothing to address the mental health issues that are often behind the problems, as well as giving a very powerful weapon to those same mentally-ill people to use against their ex-partners, to nobody's benefit.
CraigO;
I think you have hit the nail on the head here. The reform encourages mental illness through litigation to protect children. One must be mad to go to family court - so redefine it as family violence.  

Vipashana;
I'm not sure that expanding the definition of family violence to include everything from bad breadth to devouring one's children is the answer to parental alienation - or anything. It would seem the opposite. To arm the victim Mother with a loaded family violence gun is dangerous. To remove the constraint of facilitating the child's relationship with the Father, in addition to offering a bounty of child support and assets, is MAD for the child.  Surely the detente presumption of equal time is preferable.

For enlightenment, lighten up
ERROR: A link was posted here (url) but it appears to be a broken link.
McLellanism

"Wasn't McCarthyism rejected over 50 years ago?

Maybe the AG wants to usher in a new era of McCarthyism, called McLellanism.

From Wikipedia: McLellanism is the practice of making accusations of subversion, abuse or violence, exclusively by males against females or children, without proper regard to evidence.

The term has its origins in the period in Australia known as the McLelland Assault, lasting roughly from the late 2007s to 2011, and characterized by a hysteria of irrational fears and disconnected allegations culminating in the belief that fathers groups were conspiring to get shared care of their children in the event of divorce, for the explicit purposes of child abuse and sexual gratification.

During this era, thousands of Australian fathers were blacklisted from seeing their children, on the chief advise of the Director of the FBV (Federal Bureau of Vilification), J.Edgar Chisholm, who himself had a curious and not properly understood aversion to all things male"
…I think your wording is (part of) my point (when referring to gender wars)…

you're arming "the victim Mother with a loaded family violence gun" when, if she needs it to reveal of perp of some kind, so she should have it.

If a man needs to show he's the victim of violence, he too should have a loaded family violence gun…. how does it single out 'men' and 'women'?

 "To remove the constraint of facilitating the child's relationship with the Father, in addition to offering a bounty of child support and assets, is MAD for the child.  Surely the detente presumption of equal time is preferable."


…I may be missing something so please point it out… how does removing the constraint of 'facilitating the childrens relationship with..' mean that it can't be shown that they are 'up to something' or 'alienating them' or 'making false allegations'.. (by using the substitute wording)?

All Target Parents of Alienation, lets Unite to make an impact where it's needed for our lost children ..  http://bringingpeace2alienatedchildren.blogspot.com/
Men are rarely believed when they say the woman is violent. This is a fact not fiction.
(kalimnadancer): I don't doubt your comment, but I didn't intend to refer to 'violence' ie. physical (if that response was to me)… a woman 'psychologically' abusing a man/child isn't overly hard to believe and to prove.

I think one of the hurdles that comes (after it is shown that psychological abuse/purposeful alienation has occurred) is that the Judges don't see that 1. the psychological damage can be undone 2. that there is immense value in un-doing the damage 3. there is a need for therapeutic facilities to do it here in Australia 4. that the woman/mans behaviour when damaging a child like this is 'child abuse' and should not be turned away from (just as in false allegations made for AVO's going un punished).  Clearly some severe and automatic reprimanding/results (in point no.4) can act to bring people to fear doing it due to the repurcussions.

My question from before still remains.

Note: I have complete belief that a parent needs to 'facilitate a child's relationship', they must… but I wonder if someone can point out a little clearer why the substitute wording allows problems and how?

What bugs me about the the substitute wording is that it PRESUMES that 'an apportunity existed' to do these parenting duties etc when very often (in cases of PA) none exists… that parent is then left to prove that the opportunity wasn't there… which as I said shouldn't be too hard.  (doesn't this by default show there was 'no facilitating a relationship..')?  I think I'm repeating myself here…

I believe a benefit in the substitute wording would be to help it be pointed out in court when a parent is not taking on board fully the responsibility to care responsibly for the child during their custody/care and make regular efforts etc … ie. little effort made in proper care.. but are fighting for custody (for ulterior motives)!

All Target Parents of Alienation, lets Unite to make an impact where it's needed for our lost children ..  http://bringingpeace2alienatedchildren.blogspot.com/
So how would this new clause affect a parent in my situation: A separated father of a baby (where separation happened before birth)?

The only opportunities I have had to exercise my parenting so far is an hour at a time, a couple of times a week.

Or does this new clause only affect longer term parents who once had a living-in relationship with their children - Where there is a history of responsibility to consider?

The sad thing is, that we can no longer state that the law considers.. "the willingness and ability of each of the childs parents to facilitate, and encourage, a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent"

That clause was very important to preserve!
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets