Attachment Theory and the Family Violence Reforms

• that the Government give consideration to retaining the present provisions relating toparental responsibility (ss 61B, 61C, and 61DA), but amending the Act so that theguidelines for determining arrangements for the care of children (s 60CC) areindependent of the provisions dealing with parental responsibility;• amending s 61DA so that it creates a presumption in favour of each parent having“parental responsibility”;• in considering what parenting orders to make, the court must not assume that anyparticular parenting arrangement is more likely than others to be in the child’s bestinterests, but should seek to identify the arrangements that are most likely to advancethe child’s best interests in the circumstances of each case; and• re-writing Part VII in the interests of clarity and simplicity. 57It is perhaps implicit in what Professor Chisholm is saying that the Act should not in anyway couple considerations of parental responsibility with considerations of how muchtime a child spends with each parent. I consider that the presumption should be repealedand that reference to an obligation to consider “equal time” and “substantial andsignificant time” should similarly be excised.The formulation in s 60CC(2)(a) as to “the benefit to the child of a meaningfulrelationship” is, I believe, often misunderstood. The emphasis on the “benefit to thechild” can be overlooked. I have the impression that is it is a commonly held view that‘meaningfulness’ of a relationship should be assessed by reference to the amount of timespent with a parent, rather than the quality of the relationship. This is despite what thecase law says. For example, in Mazorski v Albright Justice Brown said:57 Chisholm, above n. 37, pp. 12-15.37