Attachment Theory and the Family Violence Reforms

More documents

Recommendations

Info

On 28 January 2010, the then Attorney-General, the Hon Robert McClelland, released allthree reports. He described them as providing “a comprehensive and objective analysisof the family law system against the aim of providing fair and sustainable solutions forfamilies, while ensuring the safety and wellbeing of children.” 72The first and most comprehensive of these reports was the AIFS Evaluationcommissioned by the Howard Government, its purpose being to conduct a majorevaluation of the 2006 changes to the Family Law Act. The AIFS evaluation was basedon an extensive amount of empirical research, comprising 17 separate studies involving28 000 people, 1724 court files, administrative data and legal analysis. 73The Chisholm review and the Family Law Council report both had a more specific focusand examined the effectiveness of legislation as well as court practices and procedures incases involving family violence.The AIFS evaluation found that the 2006 reforms have had a positive impact in someareas and a less positive impact in others.In relation to the positive findings, it found for example, that the principle of sharedparental responsibility is widely supported, although it is often misconstrued as requiringequal shared care time and, according to the AIFS, has led to unrealistic expectationsamong some parents. 74There was also evidence that the majority of separated parents with a shared carearrangement enjoy cooperative relationships with one another, and there were alsoindications of improved screening and identification of violence cases within the familyrelationships sector. 75However, at the same time the AIFS evaluation findings underline the existence ofcomplex issues, including family violence, safety concerns, mental health problems andsubstance misuse issues. For example, 26 per cent of mothers and 18 per cent of fathersreported experiencing physical hurt prior to separation, and 29 per cent of mothers and 4per cent of fathers reported experiencing emotional abuse before, during and after72 R McClelland, (Attorney-General), Release of family law reviews, media release, 28 January 2010,http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/media/pressrel/AKWV6/upload_binary/akwv60.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search=%22chisholm%20FAMILIES%2273 For a summary of the AIFS Evaluation see: R Kaspiew et al, ‘The Australian Institute of Family Studiesevaluation of the 2006 family law reforms: key findings’, Australian Journal of Family Law, vol. 24, 2010,pp. 5-33,http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/jrnart/SD6X6/upload_binary/SD6X6.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search=%22Evaluation%20of%20the%202006%20family%20law%20reforms%22 .74 Ibid., p. 6.75 Ibid., p. 25.46
separation. Families with complex needs are the predominant clients both of postseparationservices and the legal sector. 76Importantly the AIFS evaluation found that there was clear evidence that the family lawsystem as a whole had a way to go in achieving an effective response to familiespresenting with family violence and child abuse. For example, it noted that while childrenin shared care represent a minority overall, and while the majority of families with sharedcare appear to be doing well, there is evidence that these arrangements are sometimesbeing made even in circumstances where parents have safety concerns, with adverseconsequences for the well-being of children. 77The evaluation found that in families where violence had occurred, they were no lesslikely to have shared care-time arrangements than in those families where violence hadnot occurred. Similarly, families who reported safety concerns were no less likely to haveshared care-time arrangements than families without safety concerns. 78The AIFS evaluation, along with the Chisholm review and the Family Law Councilreport noted a range of issues involving specific concerns in relation to the system’shandling of family violence. These included:• the need for inter-professional communication and collaboration about caseswhere family violence and child abuse are involved. For example the finding thatfamilies who had ongoing safety concerns were no less likely than other familiesto have shared care, despite interaction with all parts of the system indicates aneed for all professionals across the system to develop a common understandingabout circumstances where shared care arrangements should not be encouraged orendorsed; 79• evidence of all three reports indicated some aspects of the 2006 reforms havecreated impediments to effective handling of matters where family violence andchild abuse are alleged. The misunderstanding of the law, in combination with alack of awareness among some professionals of the implications of familyviolence and child abuse (and the effect this may have for post-separation76 R Kaspiew et al, ‘The AIFS evaluation of the 2006 family law reforms: a summary’, Family Matters, no.86, 2011, p. 9,http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/jrnart/544756/upload_binary/544756.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search=%22AIFS%20family%20law%2277 R Kaspiew et al, ‘The Australian Institute of Family Studies evaluation of the 2006 family law reforms:key findings’, op. cit., p. 5.78 R Kaspiew et al, ‘The AIFS evaluation of the 2006 family law reforms: a summary’, op. cit., p. 12.79 R Kaspiew et al, ‘The Australian Institute of Family Studies evaluation of the 2006 family law reforms:key findings’, op. cit., p. 26.47
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 38 and 39: What these definitions convey is th
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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?