Top 5 Myths About Shared Parenting (Child Custody Laws) In Australia

Since the introduction of Australia's ground breakingless prominent (and in many cases non-existent) in
Shared Parental Responsibility (child custody) laws inSole Custody arrangements, providing for greater
2006, there has been a decidedly deceptive campaignopportunities for child abuse to occur undetected and
by some to mis-represent these laws as beingfor greater periods of time, as reflected in the
something that they are clearly not. Following is a liststatistics on child abuse.
of 10 myths about Shared Parenting in Australia that3. The 2006 Shared Parenting laws have resulted in
have been commonly peddled as truths by thesegreater risks of family violence for mothers and
parties, but are shown to be nothing other thanchildren.
distortions, falsehoods or outright lies.NOT TRUE. To the parents involved, Shared
1. Children are forced into equal time arrangementsParenting arrangements are no different to two-day
by Australia's Shared Parental Responsibility legislationper-fortnight arrangements in terms of the mechanics
NOT TRUE: There is nothing mandatory aboutof contact and change-overs. Shared Parenting does
Australia's Shared Parental Responsibility legislation. Ifnot in any way increase the time that separated
anything, it has been described as a soft alternativeparents need to spend with each other, nor need it
to what was originally preferred by the majority ininvolve any physical or proximate contact between
Parliament in 2006, being a "rebuttable presumption ofthe parents.
equal time parenting", which itself is not mandatoryAccording to the Australian Institute of Family Studies
and is determined primarily on whether such anevaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms, a large
arrangement can be safe, practical and in the child'sscale government initiated study into the
best interest.performance of these reforms, the study found that
Since the introduction of these laws, there has beenthere was no link between the 2006 Shared
a decidedly deceptive campaign by some journalistsParenting amendments and any increased risk of
and single mother's groups to mis-represent thesedomestic violence or assault against women and
laws as being inflexible and mandatory in nature, andchildren.
as a result forcing Judges to place children intoIn fact it has been argued that these laws have to a
unsafe or impractical parenting arrangements.great extent "taken the heat out" of the most
Terminology such as "mandatory" and "forced with"vexed issue in separation, namely that of a child's
have often been used in newspaper headlines orresidence, precisely because of the more balanced
opinion pieces to portray these laws in a manner thatand child-centric approach to such determinations.
is quite unequivocally untrue.4. Shared Parenting reduces Child Support
The Family Court's Shared Parental Responsibilitycommitments, which is why many fathers seek
Outcomes report underscores the fact that there isShared Parenting arrangements.
nothing mandatory about these laws, where theNOT TRUE. Such comments underlie an element of
majority of court outcomes since the introduction ofgender arrogance in suggesting that only mothers can
these laws still result in the child residing almostlove their children enough to want to spend time with
exclusively with the mother.them. To be further made by people purporting to
If these laws were mandatory in any shape or form,be feminists is beyond belief.
one would have expected that close to 100% ofNonetheless, the allegation is often made and is
court outcomes would have resulted in equalcompletely erroneous because Shared Parenting
parenting time arrangements, however as evidencedarrangements are typically more expensive for the
by the Court's own figures, the figure is significantlyaverage father than a non-custodial parenting
less at only 15% of outcomes.arrangement.
So someone has been fudging the truth to quite aShared Parenting involves a duplication of
significant degree, and this should be an importantinvestments, including new bedroom/s, new
point to remember when reading commentary on thiswardrobe of clothing, computers, furniture, toys and
debate. Given that some women's groups havemany other expenses, involving substantial capital
described Australia's Shared Parenting laws as anothercosts.
form of domestic violence against women, thisShared Parenting also shifts a greater proportion of
debate is clearly about something more than what isthe day to day costs to the fathers.
best for our children, in the eyes of some groups atMany fathers in Shared Parenting arrangements have
least. As a result, the misrepresentation of facts, thealso reported a reduction in their overall working
gender specific vitriol and in some cases thehours to accommodate their Shared Parenting
desperate attempt to associate Shared Parentingarrangement, thus reducing their income.
with Paedophilia, have been unparalleled in thisThe overall impact is that Shared Parenting
country, even for an issue that is so typically vexedarrangements provide for greater financial investment
and controversial as family law.in the support of their children by fathers, as well as
2. The risk of Child abuse increases for a child in agreater emotional, psychological and other forms of
Shared Parental arrangements.support.
NOT TRUE. Children in Shared Parental arrangementsThe child/ren as a result get more overall support
have the lowest recorded incidence of Child Abuse infrom their fathers, not less.
Australia, even lower than that of intact families.Single mothers on the other hand do receive less
Conversely, children in Sole Custody arrangementsdirect financial support from the respective fathers
have the highest risk of Child Abuse in Australia. Itwith Shared Parenting arrangements, which may go
should be noted that over 70% of all familial Childsome way in explaining the worldwide campaigns by
Abuse occur in single mother households, 1, 2, 3.single mothers' groups against Shared Parenting
Some have highlighted the child-protective dynamicsinitiatives.
inherent in Shared Parenting arrangements as being5. Children in Shared Parenting arrangements live a
similar to that already recognised in extended familyPing-Pong lifestyle.
structures. It has been argued that the broaderNOT TRUE. Shared Parenting arrangements are no
nature of parental responsibility in Shared Parentingdifferent to two-day per-fortnight arrangements in
arrangements facilitates a natural transparency ofterms of the frequency of change-overs. Children in
care, given that the child is in frequent contact withShared Parenting arrangements typically change-over
both parents and the respective extended families.their residence twice a fortnight. Children seeing their
This ongoing transparency of care optimises thefather only two days a fortnight also change-over
safety and welfare of the children involved, bytheir residence twice a fortnight.
reducing the possibility of abuse occurring withoutThe frequency of change-overs is IDENTICAL in
one of the parents detecting it at an early stage.both cases.
These natural checks and balances are unfortunately