FAMILY - changing nature of parental responsibility Flashcards
1
Q
List and outline 3 laws
A
- Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (NSW) –> introduced shared parental responsibility which meant that both parents have a role in decision making. It also priorities the needs of the child as it established that they have a right to a meaningful relationship with both parents without the instability of constantly switching between homes and schools.
- Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011 (NSW) –> established that if there was evidence of abuse or neglect from one parent, the principle of shared parental responsibility would be overruled as its deemed the child’s safety is more important than maintaining a meaningful relationship with them
- The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (the Court) established a court list that is dedicated to dealing exclusively with urgent family law disputes that have arisen as a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The operation of the COVID-19 List is set out in Family Law Practice Direction – National COVID-19 List.
2
Q
Outline some issues with the 2006 law 3
A
- Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (NSW) was ambiguous whether this meant 50/50 shared parental responsibility and time.
- An Inquiry into the Family Law System conducted by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) 2019 suggested that the definition be re-worded to ‘joint decision making about major long-term issues’
- ‘a sense of disillusionment, because they start with an assumption of a right to…equal shared care time…that’s not the reality of the law’ - Hayes, ABC, 2010
3
Q
Outline 3 cases
A
- An ABC article 2022 reveals the case of an anonymous couple who reached a ‘stalemate’ in deciding whether to get their child vaccinated against covid, both claiming they were protecting the best interests of their child in the decision.
- such cases have been ‘on the rise’ between separated couples
- review conducted by Nicholas Wood, Professor of Childhood and Adolescent Health at the University of Sydney, found that in 21/27 cases involving parental disputes regarding vaccinations, the court favoured immunisation to reduce potential health risks to the child
- Zaccardi and Zaccardi 2001 No. 2: mother was repealed the ‘spend time with orders’ granted by the court due to a history of violence initiated by the father. Initially the orders reflected a 50% split but upon appeal it was determined that Mr Zaccardi wouldn’t spend anytime with the children effective in protecting the safety of the child and reflective of how this overrules their right to have a meaningful relationship with both parents
- The case of Makinen & Taube [2021] FCCA 1878 (16 August 2021) involved a parental dispute regarding vaccination their children, then aged 8 and 12 years old. The mother was strongly anti-vaccination of all kinds and sought an order prohibiting the father from vaccinating or immunising the children; the father sought an opposing order to have sole parental responsibility over vaccinations and immunisations for the children when recommended by their treating doctors. court agreed with father, judge saying, ‘essential for the best interests of the children. This is consistent with maximising their welfare and being protective’
4
Q
international law 3
A
- CROC A19 - free from violence
- CROC A9 - maintain relationship unless not in best interests, implicit parents right then also to maintain a relationship with child
- UN Access to Justice and Rule of Law outlines that laws should be accessible and easy to interpret understand
5
Q
stats 4
A
- 16% of children live in single-parent households and 16% in blended families, 2021 Australian Institute of Family Studies
- 30% of first-time marriages end in a divorce and 60% of second time
- children spend 60% more time with mum than dad
- Around one in four of today’s children will experience parental divorce/permanent separation before the age of 18 - ABS
