Issues
Paper No. 12
By
Stuart
Birks
CENTRE
FOR PUBLIC POLICY EVALUATION
2002
Published
by
Centre
for Public Policy Evaluation
College
of Business, Massey University
Palmerston
North
NEW
ZEALAND
June 2002
Click to download the complete Issues
Paper as a pdf file (1.37MB)
PREFACE
The
Father&Child Society is an umbrella organisation for a number
of regional groups supporting fathers. Through our member groups
we hear numerous stories of fathers feeling that they face
barriers. Many of these relate to family law, to the point where
many fathers believe that the Family Court is weighted against
men.
I
have had many years personal experience of working with men in
Nelson. I get the signal that, when a marriage or long-term
partnership breaks up, and particularly when children are
involved, the majority of men feel powerless. They feel that
the systems work against them, and that women have all the power
and control. They have a strong impression that the court system
and society favours women.
Men’s
socialisation focuses on invulnerability, which of course makes
them more vulnerable because there is less support for them, and
it is harder for them to ask for help when they need it. When a
relationship ends, they are generally the ones who have to move
out.
In
my experience, and contrary to the stereotype, very few dads are
deadbeat dads. I find that, before leaving home, the dads I see
have tried everything they can. They also say, “The kids
need their mums”. They nearly always recognise the value of
mothers. Unfortunately, though, through the wider Family Court
system and its affiliated network of lawyers and counsellors many
dads get very little contact with their children, often only two
hours a week. This is not enough to maintain close relationships.
When they do get contact, they feel that their parenting is very
much under the spotlight.
Today’s
men recognise the importance of being a real dad. This is not to
say that men in the past thought otherwise, but views of
parenting by both mothers and fathers change over time, and now
fewer fathers than ever are living with their children.
Many
fathers say they have given up all hope of relationships with
their children for the present. They do cling to the belief that,
when children get old enough, they will make up their own minds
and be more open to contact. They are often told to expect this
by people in the Family Court. We hope that they are right.
While
the editorial control for this Issues Paper rests with the Centre
for Public Policy Evaluation, the Father&Child Society is
pleased to support this work.
Philip
Chapman
President
Father&Child
Society
May
2002
Acknowledgement
This Issues Paper was partially funded by the Father&Child Society.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
Page
Nos
Preface
................................................................................................................
i
Acknowledgement................................................................................................................
i
Chapter
One: Introduction –
Inherent biases?..................................................................
1
Chapter
Two: Politicians' Voices,
Lawyers' Voices..........................................................
3
Appendix 2.1 “Family Law Exacerbates Fatherlessness” Dr
Muriel Newman............ 16
Appendix 2.2 Lawyers’ letters................................................................................
21
Chapter
Three: Critical Voices .......................................................................................
30
Appendix 3.1 Submission by Stuart Birks..................................................................
33
Appendix 3.2 Submission by Paul Callister...............................................................
43
Appendix 3.3 Submission by Karla Osmers..............................................................
47
Appendix 3.4 Submission by Angela Phillips.............................................................
56
Appendix 3.5 Submission by Caring Fathers Group...................................................
73
Appendix 3.6 Auckland fathers...............................................................................
93
Chapter
Four: Family law - what it
teaches our children................................................
100
Chapter
Five: Public opinion or
public sentiment: family law policymaking in New Zealand 114
List
of Issues Papers........................................................................................................
128
Chapter
One
Introduction
– Inherent Biases?
Issues
Paper 9, Inclusion or Exclusion: Family Strategy and Policy,
was published in November 2000. The collection of papers
suggested that men's and fathers' perspectives were not being
considered in family research and policy, particularly in the
area of family law. Since then, there have been several
developments in the consideration of family law. These include:
submissions on the review of the laws about guardianship, custody
and access being received and summarised; introduction of the new
Property Relationships Act; the Child Support Amendment Act 2001;
defeat of the Open Family Court Bill; release of the Law
Commission's Preliminary Paper 47, Family Court Dispute
Resolution; and the commissioning of Family Court outcomes
research by the Department for Courts. There have also been
regular protests outside Family Courts and related venues.
Inclusion
refers to inclusion in normal social life. Commonly it is
considered in relation to poverty or involvement in broad social
and political activities. It should also relate to involvement in
families. Has anything changed since Issues Paper 9 was
published? It would appear not. In fact, there appears to be a
widespread effort by the government, the legal profession and
others to deny or downplay many of the problems currently
observed in relation to family law. This is clearly evidenced in
the description of concerns about the treatment of fathers as the
voices of a few "disgruntled dads", or the "fathers'
rights movement" (stereotyped in a selection of extreme
statements), and in the repeated failure to acknowledge phenomena
such as gatekeeping or parental alienation, the parenting role of
non-custodial parents and the institutional barriers they face,
or the broader impact of the decisions of the Family Court beyond
individual cases.
While
there are apparent attempts at consultation, with associated
calls for submissions, these activities suffer from fundamental
weaknesses in terms of research design, selective use of
information, inadequate critical assessment, and, once again,
failure to acknowledge criticisms that are raised.
This
Issues Paper attempts to demonstrate the existence of these
weaknesses and, to go some way towards redressing that imbalance.
Chapter
2 presents and discusses statements by some key politicians and
lawyers. It illustrates “official” positions and the
nature of the law and policy debate as shaped by key players.
The
significant content of Chapter 3 is in its six appendices. Five
of these are submissions to the Ministry of Justice’s Review
of Guardianship, Custody and Access. Two are from academics,
myself and Paul Callister. They focus primarily on the research
content, or perhaps more accurately, the lack of content, of the
review. Submissions by Karla Osmers and Angela Phillips
illustrate the thoughtful and wide-ranging suggestions that can
be found in some submissions, the structured and interrelated
nature of which is lost in the review process. The fifth
submission, by Don Rowlands of the Christchurch Caring Fathers
Group, contains thoughtful discussion and detailed consideration
of overseas legal approaches to the issues under consideration.
The sixth appendix consists of summary notes of a meeting between
representatives of Auckland fathers’ groups and the
Principal Family Court Judge. But for the speech by Muriel Newman
MP in Chapter 2 Appendix 1, there is a big difference in the
approaches taken and concerns raised in Chapter 2 and in Chapter
3.
Chapter
4 is a paper presented at the Fourth Child and Family Policy
Conference, “Children and Young People: Their Environments”,
held in Dunedin in June 2001. Much discussion on law focuses on
individual situations and decisions, but that is only part of the
picture. This chapter considers wider social implications and
longer-term ramifications that might be anticipated from society’s
experience of family law. The view presented in currently common
descriptions of history, such as that based on patriarchy, is
simplified and inaccurate. Participation in society is associated
with various constraints, responsibilities and freedoms for its
diverse members. Prevailing attitudes and expectations affect
behaviour in numerous ways. The chapter attempts to challenge
some accepted beliefs and open up debate on concerns about the
implications of present structures for the nature of society and
individual behaviour in the future.
The content in the first four chapters suggests that some attention should be given to the political process. Chapter 5 is a paper presented at the New Zealand Political Studies Association Conference in Palmerston North in December 2001. It briefly discusses four recent areas of policy debate and change in the area of family law in New Zealand.