Editorial: Protesting fathers get reminder

Opinion

Family breakdowns are traumatic for everyone involved, including fathers who have to cede the primary care of their children to their estranged partner. Most of those men accept that a child needs a mother above all and do the best they can for their child from a distance.

But a few who do not accept their fate have been making a great deal of din in recent years, some of it outside the homes of Family Court lawyers on Sundays.

They claim the court is biased against men and depriving their children of their fatherly care. Their claim became so insistent that the Herald asked the court for some figures. They show that custody of children is awarded to the mother in 65 per cent of cases, and to the father alone in 11 per cent. The separated parents share the care in 12 per cent of cases and in another 12 per cent the children are entrusted to a third person.

These figures probably do not surprise anyone very much, and for that reason they do not suggest the court is unduly biased against men in general. Most people, including parents involved in the family breakdown, would agree that the interests of a young child in these circumstances are best served by awarding custody to the mother. Indeed, in 74 per cent of all cases the issue is resolved by consent. Of the rest, 20 per cent are uncontested - custody is awarded in the absence of the other parent - and just 5.4 per cent of orders are made by a judge at a defended hearing.

This last category produces the angry men who write to newspapers and picket lawyers' homes. As a sample of 5.4 per cent at best, they can say nothing of value about the performance of the Family Court overall, though they occupy more of its time than most cases do. Principal Judge Peter Boshier told the Herald, "Some of these cases are litigated and relitigated by parents who are unable to put their own issues second to those of their children."

That is probably the nub of it. The protesting fathers are correct that every child deserves a father and a mother, preferably living happily in the same house. And in some cases the fathers might not carry the blame for the breakdown of the parents' relationship. But blame is not the Family Court's purpose; the wellbeing of children is its first concern. But by the time a case gets to a custody hearing it is a bit late to expect the court to attempt a reconciliation of a couple who cannot agree even on the best arrangements for their children.

In almost three cases of out of four the pair have agreed on the children's needs and custody is awarded to one or the other, usually the mother, by consent. Judge Boshier was surprised to find that only 12 per cent were orders for shared care. It was his impression that most of the orders made by him and his fellow judges were for shared day-to-day care. The Protesting Fathers Coalition has seized on the 12 per cent figure as one that "debunks the suggestion that shared parenting is getting any kind of favour".

No, it does not. The protesting fathers need reminding that in all but 5.6 per cent of cases before the court the parents either agree on the parenting arrangements or one of the parents has chosen not even to participate in the proceedings. If the protesting fathers are in the latter category, they can hardly criticise the court's decision. We should credit them all with caring enough to attend the court and contest the orders, in which case they all fall within the 5.4 per cent - hardly a representative sample.

The secrecy of family proceedings has contributed to the suspicion put about by disgruntled fathers. But Judge Boshier has gone some way to opening the court's doors. These figures may be a draught of fresh air for all concerned.