It never can be in the interests of a child not to experience a good
relationship with both devoted parents.
The exercise of parental rights and the mutual enjoyment by parent and
child of each other's company constitute fundamental elements of family
life. I consider this right to be very much a mutual right of Mother
and Father. Evidence can be shown that the Family Court does not place
any value on this mutuality.
The Family Court, through its regular failure to uphold the interests
of the children does not act in a manner which enables family ties to
be maintained. It is not only the obligation to refrain from measures
that cause family ties to rupture that is violated. The right, as affirmed
by the Court, to be positively supported in maintaining family relations
between the children and their good fathers is also violated. Instead,
the court’s actions consist of a double negative, in that it supports
and sustains the conditions leading to children’s fathers being
removed from their lives.
The natural link between a parent and a child is of fundamental importance
and, where the actual ‘family life’ in the sense of ‘living
together’ has come to an end, continued contact between them is
desirable and should remain possible. Respect for family life implies
that this contact should not be denied unless there are strong reasons
which justify such interference. There is too often no justification
whatsoever in denying many children their own loving fathers.
The procedural failings, failure to take into account the interests
of the children and all the issues taken into consideration above lead
to one conclusion: the negative interference of the police and family
court in private family lives, in the family lives of children, and
even -- on a broader view -- in the lives of many mothers, constitutes,
all too often, a comprehensive violation.
Equal Shared Parenting must begin to be recognised by the Family Court
as best outcome for all custody dispute resolutions in the very best
interests of our children.
