Dail Jones: Care of Children Bill seems to have no useful purpose

COMMENT

As a lawyer who has been involved in the practice of family law in one form or another for about 40 years, I can see no valid reason for the passing of the Care of Children Bill in its present form.

I am a member of the parliamentary select committee listening to submissions on the bill and it was interesting to hear from the witness for the Vincent de Paul Society who, when asked why he thought the Government was introducing this bill, replied that it was because the Government was "nuts".

There appears to be no substantial purpose to the bill other than to change the name of a custody order to a parenting order and an interim order to a contact order.

This is the bill which the Government could not get right even in its reference to homosexual mothers and lesbian fathers. It will reignite the abortion debate on the rights of a minor to have an abortion without parental consent, and this topic will tend to overshadow every other aspect of this bill.

Perhaps this is the Government's plan; it is not new for the Government to divert attention from important issues by a side-issue such as, in this case, abortion.

After hearing many submissions and reading all 270 or so of them, it seems to me that the only group that can claim any real reason to support the bill are the various lesbian and homosexual witnesses who came before the committee supporting it because they believed it would improve their recognition by the courts.

Lesbians and homosexuals can now obtain custody or access orders. It would appear that lesbians and homosexuals make up 0.3 per cent of society today.

All the lesbian and homosexual witnesses are seeking is a right for themselves, not anything which relates to the welfare or best interest of the child.

The Union of Fathers was asked if the bill would improve their situation and they said no.

The practical requirements of obtaining a parenting order or contact order will be exactly the same as apply to today's custody and access orders. The bitter disputes between the parties will be exactly the same.

Sadly, the bill does nothing to support the traditional standard relationship of a man and a woman with their children. It may give some support to lesbians and homosexuals, but even this is doubtful.

The Government's explanatory note says nothing to support the average family. A few token words would have been helpful, but even tokenism towards families is not within the scope of the minister in charge of the bill.

The bill has two redeeming features which do not really necessitate legislation in this form. They are an extension of the privacy available to the Family Court and the payment by the Government of the fee for supervised access.

Despite its name this bill does nothing to improve the welfare of children in a Family Court situation. Sadly, such situations can only be improved by the parents themselves taking a better attitude to the whole situation.

One major improvement to family law practice would be a requirement to lapse any interim custody order made at the time of a protection order after 21 days. No further order should be made without a hearing by the court or at an interim family resolution process.

After 21 days the non-custodial parent should be entitled to access, if only supervised access. Now, a non-custodial parent can go without access for 12 months or more. This does nothing for the best interests or welfare of the child. This bill does nothing in this respect and shows the Government's unwillingness to tackle a real problem for the Family Court.

Another major improvement would be the requirement for an interim family resolution process to be completed within three months of any application filed in the court.

Such process should require compulsory attendance by the applicant and respondent for custody or access. Failure to attend without a good reason should be a ground for considering cancelling any custody or access order in existence.

Such a process could be undertaken by trained lay dispute resolvers, not necessarily judges, and both the parties to the case (or any other party), should undertake genuine efforts to promote the best interests and welfare of the child so that it can have contact with both parents. Final court orders could be made by a Family Court judge after another hearing if necessary.

A third improvement to the bill would be a wider publication of the events taking place.

The Family Court is regrettably a court in which lies are told regularly, and I would not be the only lawyer who has lodged an opposition to a protection order because of the lies told by the applicant.

In one defence I undertook the judge stopped the case before it was completed and cancelled the protection order, so obvious were the lies.

The judiciary is not to blame for the the law. Parliament and the citizenry must take the responsibility. If we pass slack laws, we make it difficult for the judiciary to operate at a reasonable standard.

Wider publication of the facts of the case should help to discourage lies being told in the Family Court and should help to improve court standards.

As it stands, this bill is an utter waste of time and public money. The Government has rushed a long bill into Parliament, giving it a fancy title but nothing else.

* Dail Jones is a New Zealand First list MP.