Australian Federal Goverment Dept against shared custody

Shared custody could cost hundreds of millions: reportBy Annabel Crabb
Political Correspondent
Canberra
November 1, 2003

Print this article
Email to a friend




Sharing child custody equally between divorcing or separating parents would
cost the welfare system hundreds of millions of dollars in extra payments,
according to a Federal Government department.

The Family and Community Services Department report says that if just 30 per
cent of separated parents acquired joint custody, taxpayers would pay
another $156 million a year in unemployment and family tax benefit payments.

As more parents took on custody responsibilities in such an arrangement,
payments from non-custodial parents would be reduced and the cost burden
would shift to the Government.

Nine out of 10 non-custodial parents paying maintenance are male, says the
department's submission to Parliament's joint custody inquiry.

If 30 per cent of the 685,000 families now in maintenance arrangements
swapped to a 50/50 system where each parent had equal time with their
children, parent's maintenance payments would fall by $360 million a year.
But welfare payments would increase as the parents assuming care
responsibilities would gain more entitlements. "If the parent now with extra
care is receiving Newstart allowance and is single, the higher 'with child'
rate would generally become payable," the submission says.

Parliament's Family and Community Affairs Committee is examining how parents
could share care of their children after separation or divorce, after Prime
Minister John Howard commissioned a report. At issue is a proposal that the
Family Law Act be changed to include a "rebuttable presumption" of joint
custody, where the starting point for custody negotiations would be that
children should spend equal time living with each parent.

The Family Court, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and
federal departments have criticised the proposal.

Non-custodial parents' groups have argued that the Family Court has an
informal "presumption" against joint custody, disadvantaging fathers.

The inquiry will report by the end of the year.



================================================== ======

PM backs dads in custody overhaul


The Australian newspaper carries a report this morning that "A dramatic
shift in family law could see divorced parents given automatic shared
custody of their children. John Howard is considering the radical proposal,
triggering concerns about disruption for children, who mainly live with
mothers, and greater conflict between parents.

But lobbyists for divorced men who had little access to their children
welcomed government plans for a review.

Mr Howard told Coalition MPs yesterday he was "interested in the broad
concept" of rebuttable joint custody - where the court presumes a child
should spend equal time living with each parent unless there are strong
reasons against it.

His spokeswoman said later that the Prime Minister was "mindful of the need
for male role-models for children, and the desire for both parents to have
continuing responsibility for their upbringing".

The move would be a dramatic shift from present arrangements after divorce,
where the vast majority of children live predominantly with their mother,
but stay at their father's home maybe every second weekend.

Only 16 per cent of divorced couples in Australia have the children living
with each parent for more than 30 per cent of the time.

SOURCE - FULL STORY:
The Australian

18 Jun 2003


--------------------------------

I was in court the other day and was so saddenned to see so many fathers
who have lost everything due to the ridiculous dark ages laws of child
support in Australia. It is really sickenning. Our primeminister is finally
trying to do something right and the CSA (Child Support Agency) and Family
Court are against it. What crap! I feel for these real dads. My situation is
bad enough. A woman has declared that I am the father of her child outside
Australia (and I'm not!) and the CSA has come after me with guns blazing. I
have had to go to court at great expense just to get the CSA to listen to my
case.