Changing Nature of Parental Responsibility Paragraph PDF

Preview

Summary

essay...

Description

Points on changing nature: - An emphasis on child’s rights reflects the idea that children are vulnerable members of our society and need greater protection - All decisions must be made in the best interests of the child - Interests of parents/care-givers are secondary to the child - It is important to protect child’s right to maintain a quality relationship with both parents - The law also needs to ensure parental responsibility entails more than children spending half their time with each parent - Society and courts still need to distinguish between families in which shared care is desirable and those in which there are concerns that override this aim (even after 2006 reforms) - Family Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (Cth) f ocused on the best interests of the child: - Amended to create the presumption of shared care with exceptions for child abuse - The aim of this reform was to bring about ‘generational change in family law’ and a ‘cultural shift’ in the management of parental separation ‘away from litigation and towards cooperative parenting’ - An aim to encourage parents to share both responsibility and care more equally - Shared responsibility applies equally to children born within marriage and outside of marriage - Parents now sometimes believe they are entitled to 50/50 shared care - Legislation gives children’s right to a relationship with both parents more weight than warranted  Non-legal mechanisms: - Women’s Resource Centres - National Council of Women of Australia - Dads in Distress Support Services p  rovide support for men who are going through a divorce, separation or relationship breakdown. The service provides counselling, a helpline, referrals and advocacy - Interrelate p  rovides ‘fathering programs’ and aims to help men build and maintain positive relationships with members of their families. It also provides counselling and referrals to other agencies  CASE: Kendrick & Kendrick [2016] ● In 2007, Mr and Mrs Kendrick had their daughter. By 2009 they had separated and entered into a parenting plan which allowed for: - Equal shared responsibility - The child to live primarily with her mother - The father could spend alternate weekends and parts of the holidays breaks with the daughter ● Since the final orders to the parenting plan in 2010 both parents had re-partnered and Mr Kendrick has a step-son

●

●

●

●

●



In 2014, it was proven that the step-son was behaving in a way that was a risk to the daughter’s safety. Since the step-son was below the age of criminal responsibility the police could not be involved in the matter The relationship between the two original parents worsened further and the mother became fearful that the daughter was not being protected by her father. Ms Kendrick believed Mr Kendrick would cover up anything that the steps-son did to harm their daughter Ms Kendrick applied for a court order that would give the father access to his daughter on the cognition that the daughter was not brought into contact with the step-son. Mr Kendrick was applying for a court order that would allow contact between E and C as long as there is a safety plan in his home to manage their interactions. Section 60CA of the Family  Law Act 1975 (Cth) states  that parenting orders must be made in the child’s best interest and where practical, there will be a presumption of shared parenting The court ruled that the mother was to have sole parental responsibility for the child and that the child would live with the mother. The father was granted access to the daughter on alternate Saturdays and holidays subject to an injunction that prohibited the child from coming into contact with the step-son...