From the horse's mouth, report from Australia shows how Norgrove chose to deceive the UK Government, manufacturing false figures from Australia to back up his ideologically driven and pathological lies intended to undermine shared parenting. One can only presume his integrity was affected later in life by the family law professionals whose close company he preferred during the wasteful days of the Family Justice Review. Let's hope, during his career as an accountant, that he did not similarly produce reports to order.
An article by:
Jim Carter
Shared Parenting Council of Australia
Canberra
3 December 2011
Norgrove Committee’s failure to recommend in favour of “meaningful relationships with both parents”
is based on a fundamental misrepresentation of the Australian experience with shared parenting
Norgrove Committee’s misrepresentation of the Australian experience with shared parenting
An article in The Guardian of 3 November 2011 by Owen Boycott on the report of the (UK) “Norgrove” Family Justice Review states that:
“according to (the) long-awaited report on family law… Fathers who have gone through divorce or separation will not be granted a legal right to guarantee that their child has ‘a meaningful relationship with both parents’,
“The Family Justice Review draws back from one of its key interim recommendations that had raised the hopes of groups such as Fathers 4 Justice, which campaigns for improved paternal access rights …
“… it is the review's decision on whether there should be a legal right for the child to continue having a ‘meaningful relationship with both parents’ that appears to have been most problematic.........
“In its introduction, it states: ‘We are aware that some will be disappointed by our decision to recommend against a legal presumption around shared parenting and to step back even from the recommendations we made in this respect in our interim report.
"The evidence we received showed the acute distress experienced by parents who are unable to see their children after separation. This is an issue we know countries around the world try to tackle, and fail.
"Our conclusion was reached reluctantly but clearly. The law cannot state a presumption of any kind without incurring unacceptable risk of damage to children.
“Many fathers and grandfathers who had submitted evidence to review had supported it as an ‘important step’, the report notes, ‘reflecting how society has changed and give hope to the thousands of fathers who wish to have an active and appropriate engagement in their child's upbringing’.
“But countries such as Australia, where a similar right was established in 2006, the report explained, had seen an increase in litigation, creating even more legal confrontations. ‘As a result we withdraw the
recommendation that a statement of 'meaningful relationship' be inserted in the legislation.’"
The Facts
The above claim in the Norgrove report that Australia “had seen an increase in litigation, creating even more legal confrontations” after the 2006 reforms to family law is completely wrong.
In fact, there was a sharp decline in litigation in the Australian family law system over the period. The total number of applications filed in the family court system in Australia between 2003-04 and 2008-09, as published in court annual reports, were as follows.
The number of applications for final orders in children’s matters declined by 22% - from 18,752 in 2005-06 to 14,549 in 2008-09 (Australian Institute of Family Studies, December 2009).
The AIFS report of December 2009 noted that “There is evidence of fewer postseparation disputes being responded to primarily via the use of legal services and more being responded to primarily via the use of family relationship services. This suggests a cultural shift whereby a greater proportion of post-separation disputes over children are being seen and responded to primarily in relationship terms.”
Ex-Secretary of State for Children, Schools, and Families misrepresentation of the Australian experience with shared parenting
In a BBC panel discussion on 3 November 2011, Mr Ed Balls, Children’s Secretary in the previous Labour Government, claimed, in relation to the Australian experience, that:
Youtube link to Question Time (Ed balls from 2m 40s)
“I did commission the (Norgrove) report, precisely because I was worried about
these issues around fathers’ access and grandparents’ access too, and in the
interim report as I understand it Mr Norgrove did say he wanted to look at the
issue of having a legal right of fathers. He then went and studied some of the
international experiences and in particular the Australian experience where this
was done for five or six years and the result was that after establishing the legal
right there was a huge increase in the number of child custody cases which moved
from mediation to long protracted court battles, and, as I understand it, made it
more likely that you would end up with a legal battle that would be very
damaging to children rather than being sorted out through mediation.”
This repeats the seriously incorrect statements made in the Norgrove report.
The actual situation is that:
The 2006 Australian reforms (1) incorporated a rebuttable assumption of equal parental responsibility and (2) required courts in appropriate cases (i.e., where safe and reasonably practicable) to consider whether shared parenting time should be ordered;
The percentage of separating couples who (either by consent or court order) adopted equal shared parenting or some closely similar arrangement in Australia increased over the first five years after the 2006 reform from 7% to 16%;
Not only was there a very large reduction in family law litigation following the 2006 Australian reforms, a much higher percentage of the litigation is now handled by the Federal Magistrates Courts, which deal with the less complex cases;
Far from the Australian 2006 reforms being a failure, the AIFS in its 2009 evaluation of the reforms concluded that:
“The philosophy of shared parental responsibility is overwhelmingly supported by parents, legal system professionals and service professionals”,
and that a large majority of parents believe that shared parenting is working well.
Numerous opinion polls in Australia have confirmed those assessments.
The views of the UK Government
In contrast to the remarks of the ex-Children’s Secretary UK, the comments by the current Home Secretary during the BBC discussion about shared parenting were accurate, perceptive, and positive.
It is important that the UK government understands the misleading nature of the anti-shared parenting propaganda to which it is being subjected by radical feminists from Australia and elsewhere.
Applying the Norgrove Committee’s arguments to correct information about trends in litigation in Australia would reasonably lead to the conclusion that (1) a presumption of shared parental responsibility, together with (2) encouragement for “meaningful relationships with both parents” should be an essential part of family law reform in the UK (as elsewhere).
Without that as part of its recommendations, the Norgrove review will almost certainly fail to meet its purported objectives.
As remarked by Amanda Platell in “Mail Online” on 2 December 2011:
“David Norgrove’s Family Justice Review is a misguided piece of outdated, sexist nonsense which enshrines in law a mother’s unassailable right to raise her children -alone.
“Mr Norgrove decrees that fathers should have no legal right to enjoy time with their children when a relationship ends ... He claims his review is all based on what’s ‘best for the child’. Yet he ignores decades of research that shows children from broken homes benefit from maintaining a stable, constant
relationship with their mothers and their fathers, as well as with their extended family.
“Guilty till proved innocent is the dictum for dads in the Family Law Courts.
“David Cameron has long promised his will be the most family-friendly government in history. He can prove it by condemning Mr Norgrove’s unjust Anti-Family Review andenshrining in law the
right of every decent father to a fair share in the raising of his children.”
In view of the significance of the above issues for UK Government policy, it would be useful for the above information about the Australian experience to be passed on to other interested persons and groups.
Regards
Jim Carter
Shared Parenting Council of Australia
No comments:
Post a Comment