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
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.