Web resource:	http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/resources/file/eba99749cecc3fd/Shared_Parenting_Conference_Paper.pdf
Type:	Conference Paper
Title:	Recent developments in shared parenting and joint custody: a personal view from the court
Other Titles:	The 14th Annual Family Law Masterclass Conference, Sydney, 10 May 2005
Authors:	Rowlands, Alwynne
Keywords:	Parenting;Family law;Legislation analysis
Year:	2005
Publisher:	Family Court of Australia
Notes:	This paper summarises recent developments in shared parenting and joint custody from the personal view of a Family Court Judge. It refers to the House of Representatives’ inquiry into child custody arrangements following parental separation and the Government’s discussion paper on reforms to the family law system. The Family Court of Australia has responded to both these consultations, including its rejection of the perceptions that the Court is biased or motivated by considerations other than the best interests of the child. The Family Court submission in relation to a presumption of 50/50 care pointed out potential problems based on experience in this area of law and argued this may jeopardise the best interests of the children, as it may bear no resemblance to the parenting responsibilities assumed in the pre-separation family. It explains the terms ‘joint custody’ as ‘joint legal custody’ denoting shared parental rights and responsibilities; and ‘joint physical custody’ denoting shared physical possession of a child. It suggests that ‘joint custody’ and ‘shared parenting’ are linked to the concept of a physical sharing of the children on an equal basis. It outlines the history of judicial considerations of ‘shared parenting’ and notes that the Family Court rarely makes orders for children to be physically shared by their parents based on the expert evidence provided to the Court by child psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and Family Court counsellors. Judgment in Padgen and Padgen (1991) FLC 92-231 outlined the preconditions appropriate for joint custody: the parents’ geographical proximity, compatible parenting values, the child’s adaptability, ability of both parents to properly supervise the child, mutual trust, cooperation and good communications. However, these preconditions only provide a useful starting point with the outcome dependent on the facts of the particular case so that the criteria could not overcome the child’s best interests. Hall v Fordyce (unreported) showed that, in cases where there is any degree of conflict between the parties, judges had not supported the concept of shared parenting. In Forck and Thomas (1993) FLC 92-372, Nicholson CJ did not make a joint custody order as the parties had communication difficulties. It concludes by re-emphasising the Court as duty bound to keep out of the pros and cons of Government policy and legislation.
URI:	https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/21128
Physical description:	10p
Appears in Collections:	Conference Papers

Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.