NZ: Judge warns MPs about shared care law
Judge warns MPs about shared care law
11 March 2004
Forcing shared parenting on separated families could damage children's wellbeing for the sake of their parents' convenience, Principal Family Court Judge Patrick Mahony said yesterday.
Appearing before MPs considering the Care of Children Bill, Judge Mahony said the judiciary was in the hands of Parliament when it came to the laws covering the controversial Family Court.
Some MPs, such as ACT's Muriel Newman, want the law to presume that parents will jointly share children when they separate unless there are good reasons against it.
Judge Mahony said MPs, like the courts, should be cautious about strict rules enforcing equal time-sharing, as while it might suit parents, it would not always be in the best interests of their children.
"Children should not become imprisoned by an arrangement that suits their parents, but which does not promote their wellbeing," Judge Mahony said.
While the law currently advocated one parent getting custody and the other getting access, in most cases there was an element of shared care.
It was "increasingly rare" for one parent to be given sole custody, Judge Mahony said.
The Family Court has been criticised for being secretive and lacking in accountability, but Judge Mahony said it was up to Parliament to decide the law that the Family Court operated under.
In particular MPs had to decide the balance between protecting the privacy of individuals and the need for the court to be accountable.
Judge Mahony refused to answer questions about the contempt charge laid against National MP Nick Smith for publicising a Family Court case.
Judge Mahony retires from his job on Friday.
The Care of Children Bill replaces the concept of parents' rights with parents' responsibilities.
Proposals in the bill include:
ascertaining and taking into account the views of a child;
guardianship ending at age 18, or if the child is aged between 16 and 18 and enters into a de facto relationship and parents have consented to that relationship;
the Family Court being given broader jurisdiction to make orders concerning paternity;
female partners of a birth mother are deemed a legal parent of a child conceived using assisted human reproduction techniques, providing that technology was carried out with her consent;
reports of proceedings may be published providing the report does not include any information that might lead to the identification of any party. There would be higher penalties for those who breached publication rules.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2840977a11,00.html
|
