One Nation, Free Speech and the Abolition of the Family Court

With Pauline Hanson calling for the abolition of the Family Court in her (second) maiden speech, the role of family law and the courts in adjudicating our relationships is, for better or worse, being re-examined. While the One Nation senator’s views have been widely derided, most recently by Rosie Batty, it is worth considering how family law deals with deeply personal conflicts.

“Many people caught up in Family Law disputes feel totally bamboozled and bogged down by the Family Court process,” Sullivan said. “To make it worse, they are often feeling personally broken and would really like someone to listen and to understand their situation, then to set them on a clear strategic path.”

Clients often blame family lawyers for running up costs, but Sullivan suggested that excess expenses could be due to unclear instructions – or clients using lawyers as counsellors.

One Nation has attacked the Family Court for the delays parties experience once caught up in the system. For the Family Court to function well and without delays, it also takes understanding and co-operation of the hearts and minds of the litigants before it. Judges on a daily basis have to deal with people who have little respect for the law. Orders are made only to be breached then everyone is back to Court again in a bid to get the recalcitrant litigant to see reason. Litigants refuse to file or are unable to file their documents on time, causing further delays. Children’s reports must be procured, and valuations of real estate and businesses. It takes time to deal with these cases, frustrating though that might be.

Joint custody should be the option of choice One Nations says, and there should be recognition that "a child's standard of living following divorce cannot be maintained at pre-divorce levels". Psychologists and social workers and others all agree joint custody, 50/50 time with mum and dad does not work for kids. Kids need a solid base; they need to know where they are to sleep from night to night and where their precious things are. In the context of hard working, time poor parents expecting kids to cope and be organised in two houses is well-nigh impossible: the sports uniform is at dad’s; the Maths book is at mum’s … I forgot my violin …where is my sports uniform? Joint custody is exhausting and unsettling for kids, and while it is all about the best interests of the kids, not about mum or dad’s right to see them, parents generally forget this in their fog of stress and life’s pressures.

One Nation's policy on child support is clearly influenced by the concerns of men's and father's rights organisations. One blogger from Brisbane firm, Harrington Family Lawyers, has written:

It seems a policy written by men who are bitter about their divorce experience - for men bitter about their divorce experience. “Nevertheless” Sullivan said, “while it is critical to balance the best interests of children and the safety of the women and children who have been subject to domestic violence, these disenfranchised, hurting dads, need to be listened to as well.”

Equally she argues they need educating that their children are not their possessions or goods and chattels; and that child support is for the children and not for the benefit of the estranged spouse. In the minds of many, this is a huge, indeed impossible stumbling block.

Unlike some, Sullivan does not feel the family law or court system is broken; rather, our education system, at home and in school, often does not impart how to best communicate in close relationships, or best practice child-raising.

“I know the last thing an adolescent wants to contemplate is learning about marriage and children; it could be done subtly,” suggested Sullivan who commenced her working life as a secondary school teacher. She advocates clear and direct, rather than manipulative communication, and nurturing emotional intelligence – how to best identify one’s feelings, and respond rather than react, as well as how one’s behaviour impacts upon others. “This would reduce domestic violence, relationship breakdowns and bullying, in school and at the workplace,” she said.

Without this early emphasis on healthy emotional interaction, conflict becomes far more difficult to resolve once it goes to court.

“The court is then expected to deal with all sorts of people whose co-dependency issues (care-taking, rescuing and controlling competent adults often with addictive behaviours), mental illness and lack of anger management skills are overwhelming, while at the same time applying the rule of law,” said Sullivan.

While Sullivan is adamant that free speech brings with it responsibility as well as freedom to express ourselves. However she is inspired by President of Columbia University, NY, Professor Lee Bollinger’s recent comments that ‘it is critical to engage with the seemingly intolerant and to hear their point of view and not just brush them aside as being not worth discussion.’ If brushed aside, ‘they will come back, rear their ugly heads again and again until they are listened to, which is reasonable,’ Professor Bollinger, a leading US authority on free speech said.

While in the world of the broken hearted, there are often no straight forward solutions, let’s engage in this debate and try to work toward streamlining a system which even the experts say has much room for improvement.

At the end of the day, it is all about protecting kids, and vulnerable women and men.

Prior to founding her innovative family law support service, ClearPath Navigating Family Law, Sullivan practised across a number of areas of the law in Sydney and Melbourne, and was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for services to the community, particularly for her decade of voluntary work as architect of the Governor and Mrs Macquarie Bicentenary Commemorations in 2010. Macquarie she insists is still relevant. It is widely recognised that he was the author of our closely held Australian value of the “fair go”.

www.navigatingfl.com.au