"THE OTHER FAMILY VIOLENCE"

(from the report of the Forum, "Towards a Policy on Men's Health", Palmerston North, New Zealand, 8 May 1996)

One separated father, having spent a lot of time with his children since separation, but still being classified as an "absent parent", due to the children sleeping less than 146 nights a year with him, applied to the Family Court for custody. His ex-partner was unco-operative, and so the only option the judge chose to consider involved a halving of his time with the children.

Another father had custody of his child for 18 months since separation under a formal agreement, but his ex-partner changed her mind and applied for custody. The judge in this case thought the appropriate solution would be for the father just to see the child at weekends.

Yet another father was awarded access including over 130 nights a year (but again under the crucial 146 nights required for a change in the child support formula). His ex-partner was then allowed to relocate so far away that he had to change to part-time work and set up another home near the children so as to achieve this level of access and get the children to and from school when they were in his care.

Judge Green's paper to the New Zealand Law Society's Family Law Conference in October 1995 discussed issues of custody and access. It is discussed here. Despite gender-bias in custody decisions being explicitly ruled out by subsection 23.1.a of the Guardianship Act (see here), added 15 years earlier, it would appear that such bias is still acceptable, and hostile actions by a mother are tolerated. It even appears that a non-custodial parent might be required to have a "significant and positive" relationship with the custodial parent, if the latter is to be prevented from relocating the children.

The Duluth Wheel specifies a range of abusive behaviours. It comes from a programme on which the Hamilton Abuse Intervention Pilot Project is based. It is discussed here. The behaviours included are not unlike those considered in the New Zealand Justice Departments' Hitting Home study on male domestic violence towards women (for discussion of that study, see here and here). The following are among the behaviours considered:

* Using economic abuse

* Using gender privilege

* Using isolation

* Threatening to take children away

* Making light of the abuse and not taking other's concern about it seriously

There are very close parallels between these behaviours and some of the outcomes of the family law system in New Zealand.

On economic abuse, consider that up to virtually 40 per cent of a liable parent's take-home pay can be required for "child support", although there is no accountability whatsoever on how the money is used by the custodial parent.

On gender privilege, the award of custody appears to strongly favour women. Unfortunately data has not been collected since 1990, which is perhaps indicative of the lack of concern about this issue. Shared custody is virtually ruled out in all but the most amicable of separations, although the justification for this is questionable (see here).

On isolation, consider the acceptance of loss of contact between children and non-custodial parents. This is isolating both parties. The ability to do this with the court's acceptance makes threats to take children away all the more effective.

For an example of making light of the abuse, we can look at the interview with Australian Family Court Chief Justice Alistair Nicholson on Radio Australia's Law Report programme (discussed here, with a link to the full transcript). In brief, he believes that a man who is dissatisfied with losing his children is simply suffering from an old-fashioned belief that he has the right to control his family. He effectively suggests that he should, "shut up and take it like a man".

M McPherson, on page 41 of her book, Divorce in New Zealand (1996, Social Policy Research Centre, Massey University) describes control of access as, "one of the few sources of power women may hold in the divorce process". While this comes in a section which summarises the relevant literature, it is alarming for three reasons. First, it belittles and perhaps even excuses the use of the extremely powerful weapon of taking away someone's family for personal advantage. Second, it suggests, without giving reasons, that there is a major power imbalance in favour of men. Third, it shows that such behaviour is accepted in a family court system which is supposed to be based on the primary guiding principle of the "best interests of the children".

As to whether the outcomes of the family court system are harmful, this would be indicated by data on separation and suicide. An Australian study (Cantor C H and Slater P J, "Marital Breakdown, Parenthood, and Suicide", Journal of Family Studies Vol.1 No.2, October 1995) found that separated men had a suicide rate about 6.2 times that of married men, and about 12 times that of separated women. The study suggested that children "could well contribute to the observed different suicide rates, as females are more commonly the principal parents during separation". (p.99)

There may also be a link between separation and unemployment. McPherson mentions on page 43 that three out of four liable parents paid no more than the minimum $10 per week in child support. This would suggest that many of them are on very low incomes. This may be either a cause or an effect of separation. It may also be unrelated, but the figure seems very high for a coincidental outcome.

Stuart Birks

Last modified 12 June, 1996