Attachment Theory and the Family Violence Reforms

More documents

Recommendations

Info

What these definitions convey is that ‘meaningful’, when used in the context of‘meaningful relationship’, is synonymous with ‘significant’ which, in turn, isgenerally used as a synonym for ‘important’ or ‘of consequence’. I proceed on thebasis that when considering the primary considerations and the application of theobject and principles, a meaningful relationship or a meaningful involvement isone which is important, significant and valuable to the child. It is a qualitativeadjective, not a strictly quantitative one. 58I have no argument with the intent of the provision and indeed I consider it to be veryimportant, but perhaps it would benefit from being expressed with more clarity. 59Finally, while a key component of the family law reforms is the revised and expandeddefinition of family violence, the Act does not provide any further assistance as to howthe court is to proceed after making a finding that violence has occurred, or that a childhas been exposed to family violence. This is a concern that has also been expressed bythe Chief Justice. For example, there is nothing in the Act that states that, if an allegationof violence is found to be proven, the court must not order that a child spendunsupervised time with the person who has used violence, unless the court is satisfied thatsuch an arrangement would be safe and in the child’s best interests. This is incontradistinction to our regional neighbours New Zealand, whose legislation does containsuch a provision. 60With the emphasis that has been placed on the expanded definition of family violence,and the way in which it relates to the presumption of equal shared parental responsibilityand then to consideration of equal time and substantial and significant time, parents maythink that a finding of family violence will automatically mean that there will be no orderfor equal time or substantial and significant time. However, this may not be the outcome.58 (2007) 37 Fam LR 518 at 526.59 For further discussion of the concept of a “meaningful relationship” see Richard Chisholm, ‘TheMeaning of Meaningful: Exploring a Key Term in the Family Law Act Amendments of 2006’ (2008) 22Australian Journal of Family Law 175.60 Care of Children Act 2004 (NZ) s 60.38
Even if the court decides that it is not in the interests of the child to make an order forequal time or for significant or substantial time, there is no guidance as to what ordermight then be made in circumstances where an allegation of family violence has beenfound to be proven to the requisite legal standard.Having said that, this was the case before the amendments and the Court was still able tofashion orders in these circumstances, taking into account all of the relevant factors suchas the kind of violence, the impact of that violence, the extent of the violence, theparenting arrangements that had been in place, including by consent, and the age andviews of the children.Further, as many of my judicial brethren have often pointed out, one very relevant factorin how the violence is addressed is the orders sought by each party. For example, if thedispute is about whether the child should spend two days rather than three days with theviolent parent, it is unlikely that the violence will have much, if any, bearing on theresult.I agree with the Chief Justice’s view expressed to me on a number of occasions that itshould be possible to insert in the Act, perhaps in s 60CC(2), some of the considerationsthat the court would take into account in making an order for time spent notwithstandingthat violence had been established. This would make it clear to the parties litigating thesematters that not only might the court be considering making such an order, but the criteriaupon which that order might be based.The point is that given the continuing absence of any guidance in the legislation as tohow the court is to proceed, the expectation of parents created by the focus on theexpanded definitions may well be defeated.39
Page 3: I should mention that although my p
Page 6 and 7: conflict are not just “in the mom
Page 8 and 9: interests as the paramount consider
Page 10 and 11: The 2006 reforms also introduced Di
Page 12 and 13: ehaviour is unacceptable, including
Page 14 and 15: outcomes for parents and their chil
Page 16 and 17: In an attachment context, Bowlby no
Page 18 and 19: I have made several references to v
Page 20 and 21: law does not automatically provide
Page 22 and 23: A report by the Family Law Council
Page 24 and 25: a violent partner was the lesson th
Page 26 and 27: It is therefore entirely understand
Page 28 and 29: eing secondary to that. 46 It appea
Page 30 and 31: Despite this caveat, attachment the
Page 32 and 33: utilised to support attachment rela
Page 34 and 35: notices will be filed than is prese
Page 36 and 37: of child related proceedings, are s
Page 40 and 41: ConclusionIn conclusion, all that I
Page 42 and 43: INTRODUCTIONThe Family Law Legislat
Page 44 and 45: to the best interests test, childre
Page 46 and 47: On 28 January 2010, the then Attorn
Page 48 and 49: parenting arrangements) raise conce
Page 50 and 51: (j) unlawfully depriving the family
Page 52 and 53: After subsection 60CC(2)(2A) In app
Page 54 and 55: allows the court to consider eviden
Page 56 and 57: Requiring interested persons to dis
Page 58 and 59: (a)made:consider what interim or pr
Page 60 and 61: CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONSThe Bills Di
Page 62 and 63: Appendix 2A selection of data about
Page 64 and 65: Sixteen percent of parents arrived
Page 66 and 67: The first three variables independe
Page 68 and 69: The various sets of data used in AI
Page 70 and 71: Appendix 3Family Court of Australia
Page 72 and 73: Appendix 4Child Dispute Services, F
Page 74 and 75: 14) Following a Child Dispute Servi

Attachment Theory and the Family Violence Reforms

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?