Monthly Archives: June 2014

Women more Violent and Controlling than Men: Various Studies find

on by

women-the-aggressors-in-dvContrary to the overwhelming perception in society, numerous studies and statistics recently published from a variety of disparate sources have indicated that women are more likely to be verbally and physically aggressive to their partners than men, and are increasingly participating in serious acts of violence against other men, women, the elderly and children.

The findings were presented to a symposium on “intimate partner violence” (IPV) at the British Psychological Society’s Division of Forensic Psychology annual conference in Glasgow.

Dr Elizabeth Bates from the University of Cumbria and colleagues from the University of Central Lancashire gave 1104 students (706 women and 398 men) questionnaires about their physical aggression and controlling behaviour, towards partners and to same-sex others (including friends).

Women were revealed to be more likely to be physically aggressive to their partners, and men were more likely to be physically aggressive to their same-sex partners.

Women were also shown to engage in greater levels of controlling behavior, which is understood to be a predictor of physical aggression in both sexes.

“This was an interesting finding,” Dr Bates says. “Previous studies have sought to explain male violence towards women as rising from patriarchal values, which motivate men to seek to control women’s behaviour, using violence if necessary.

“This study found that women demonstrated a desire to control their partners and were more likely to use physical aggression than men.

“It wasn’t just pushing and shoving,” Dr Bates said, of responses to the anonymous questionnaire. “Some people were circling the boxes for things like beating up, kicking, and threatening to use a weapon.

“The feminist movement made violence towards women something we talk about. Now there is more support for men and more of them are coming forward.”

In another finding in Australia, the number of men who report experiencing domestic violence from their current partner has almost doubled since 2005, according to a new survey released last week by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).

The ABS Personal Safety Survey 2012 collected information from men and women aged 18 years and over about their experience of violence since the age of 15.

Meanwhile, girls have been found to be more devious than boys in their torment of classmates, Australia’s biggest childhood study reveals.

Kids who are poor, overweight, Aboriginal, disabled or living with a single mother are most likely to be picked on in the playground, the Australian Institute of Family Studies has found in a survey of more than 4000 children aged 10 and 11.

Three in every five kids had been subjected to “unfriendly behaviour” in the past year, ranging from hitting to name-calling and being left out of social groups.

And according to new national crime figures women are now outpacing men in the violence stakes, with the rate of women committing assaults jumping 49 per cent since the mid 1990s.

Australian Institute of Criminology data shows the number of female assaults per 100,000 women increased from 125 to 186 between 1996 and 2010 compared to an increase of just 18 per cent for men, while other figures show that mother’s were by far the single biggest group responsible for child abuse and child murder in Australia.

Griffith University’s Violence Research and Prevention Program director Professor Paul Mazerolle said there was “no question” young women were getting more involved in violence: “There’s been a moderate increase in [female] violence but we as a community are less tolerant of violence so we’re seeing more of a response from police.”

Academic Calls for Taxpayer-Funded Child Support: Inquiry

on by

child-support-agencySeparated parents should not miss out on child support payments if the other parent fails to pay their way, a Tasmanian academic has urged the federal government’s child support Inquiry.

Senior lecturer at the University of Tasmania’s school of social sciences, Dr Kristin Natalier has recommended taxpayers foot the bill of the amount owed so single parents and their children are not financially disadvantaged.

In her submission to the inquiry into the child support program, Dr Natalier said there were high rates of non- payment, partial payment or late payment of child support.

Figures obtained by the Department of Human Services showed Tasmanian single parents were owed $22 million as at August last year.

Dr Natalier said the methods used by Child Support Agency to collect payments in arrears contributed to financial instability and poverty of the rightful recipients, the majority of whom are single mothers and their children.

If CSA decided to write-off a debt, the amount owing should be “gifted” to the resident parent.

“This recognises that a payee should not be financially disadvantaged as a result of CSA’s failure to successfully pursue a child support debt,” Dr Natalier said.

The deadline for feedback to the inquiry has been extended until July 4.

Bass Liberal MHR Andrew Nikolic encouraged anyone with experience of the child support program to have their say via a submission or completing an online survey.

“A lot of Tasmanian parents who pay and receive child support are telling me about their problems with the child support system,” Mr Nikolic said.

The National Council of Single Mothers and their Children Hobart branch’s submission recommended introducing tougher penalties for non-payments, including confiscating drivers licences or credit rating downgrades.

The council also called for reform to the formula used to determine the amount of child support fees and re-opening of Child Support Agency shop-fronts to provide a point of contact for parents struggling with the system.

Previously, Relationships Australia has told the government’s child support inquiry that some parents are insisting on shared custody just so they can pay less — or claim more — maintenance through the Child Support Agency.

“The negotiation of three nights of care per week is a clear consideration for many of our ­clients as this is seen as the threshold used by Child Support,’’ it says in its submission to the parliamentary inquiry, which begins public hearings in Canberra today. “This means that the child support formula, rather than best interests of children, may drive the negotiation.”

When custody is shared, maintenance payments are based on each parent’s income and their time with the children.

Relationships Australia says parents often ask counsellors to “verify the custody arrangements and advise on the proportion of child support which each parent should pay’’.

The counsellors refer parents to the Child Support Agency.

Relationships Australia warns that children who prefer to live with one parent are being ignored because of the financial effect on the other parent.

“A child may be interested in spending more time with one parent but the change in care ­arrangements may impact on the other parent immediately, which in some instances can be a disincentive for changes to care ­arrangements, even if this is what the children may want,’’ it says.

Parents Seek Custody to Manipulate Child Support: Inquiry Hears

on by

child-support-agencyMany separating parents are manipulating Australia’s child custody laws, in some cases to claim maximum child support, while in other cases, to avoid or reduce their child support commitments, the nation’s largest counselling group has warned the federal government.

Relationships Australia has told the government’s child support inquiry that some parents are insisting on shared custody just so they can pay less — or claim more — maintenance through the Child Support Agency.

“The negotiation of three nights of care per week is a clear consideration for many of our ­clients as this is seen as the threshold used by Child Support,’’ it says in its submission to the parliamentary inquiry, which begins public hearings in Canberra today. “This means that the child support formula, rather than best interests of children, may drive the negotiation.”

When custody is shared, maintenance payments are based on each parent’s income and their time with the children.

Relationships Australia says parents often ask counsellors to “verify the custody arrangements and advise on the proportion of child support which each parent should pay’’.

The counsellors refer parents to the Child Support Agency.

Relationships Australia warns that children who prefer to live with one parent are being ignored because of the financial effect on the other parent.

“A child may be interested in spending more time with one parent but the change in care ­arrangements may impact on the other parent immediately, which in some instances can be a disincentive for changes to care ­arrangements, even if this is what the children may want,’’ it says.

The National Council of Single Mothers and their Children has told the inquiry some fathers seek custody of children one day a week, or every second weekend, just to get a 24 per cent “discount’’ on maintenance payments.

“We remain completely unconvinced that 24 per cent discount in child-support payments in exchange for as little as 13 per cent care is fair or equitable,’’ the council’s submission says. “We are concerned that the significant and disproportional outcome is an economic driver, which is contradictory to the ‘best interest of the child’.’’

Many argue however that the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children is completely out of touch with the significant expenses incurred in seeing children even as little as once a week, given that extra bedrooms and clothes don’t cost less because the child lives predominantly elsewhere.

Barry Williams of the Lone Fathers Association has also claimed that many mothers are faking domestic violence in order to secure full custody of their children, simply to get the maximum child support.

While a senior lecturer at the University of Tasmania’s school of social sciences, Dr Kristin Natalier has recommended taxpayers foot the bill of the amount owed so single parents and their children are not financially disadvantaged.

In her submission to the inquiry into the child support program, Dr Natalier said there were high rates of non- payment, partial payment or late payment of child support.

Figures obtained by the Department of Human Services showed Tasmanian single parents were owed $22 million as at August last year.

The inquiry has received 10,000 responses to its survey about the scheme, which last ­financial year oversaw the transfer of $3.4 billion in maintenance payments for 1.2 million children.

Mothers ‘faking domestic violence’ to keep children, Child Support Inquiry told

on by

child-support-agencyMOTHERS are faking domestic violence to secure custody of their children, a parliamentary inquiry has been told.

The claim, made to an inquiry into the fraught subject of child support, has been labelled dangerously misleading.

Statistics show one woman is killed by her partner every week, and that between one in four and one in three has experienced domestic violence. There is no evidence that women commonly lie about domestic violence.

But the Lone Fathers Association (Australia) has written to the inquiry, arguing that controversial changes to laws made in 2011 have “had the effect of encouraging divorcing parents to make false or exaggerated accusations of domestic violence against their ex partners with a view to reducing or eliminating custody and access”.

They say that has in turn led to parents committing suicides. The Australian Men’s Health Forum also argue in a submission that the child support system and a lack of help for men has led to suicides and murders of partners and children.

However, critics of their position say the problem with domestic violence is that it is under-reported, not over-reported.

LFAA President Barry Williams lashed out at the 2011 reforms which expanded domestic violence to include stalking, threats, intimidation, hurting pets or financially controlling partners.

“(The) definition of domestic violence now provides a strong incentive to lie in order to obtain an advantage in divorce settlements,” he wrote.

“The 2011 family violence legislation is one of the most destructive pieces of legislation passed in recent times. It is very one-sided and has caused some good innocent men to feel there was no help for them, that the system had failed them, and that all they had left was to take their own life to ease their pain.

“Under the 2011 legislation one only has to be accused of domestic violence and one is guilty. Not innocent until proven guilty, but guilty on accusation, in many cases lies, and even when the accused after a year or more is found to be innocent of the accusation there is no punishment imposed on the person making the false accusation.”

Therese Edwards, the CEO of the Adelaide-based National Council on Single Mothers and Their Children, will give evidence to the inquiry on Thursday.

She said claiming women lied about domestic violence was “dangerous” and trivialised a serious problem.

“The one thing the statistics show is that domestic violence is under reported, under disclosed,” she said.

“There is a great reluctance for women to report domestic violence because in some states the mum could be found negligent (if courts think she has allowed children to be exposed to violence).

“It’s really clear that it’s under-reported. (and) it does a disservice when men’s groups say the opposite.”

Redundancies – how they are treated in divorce property settlements

on by

nest eggIn family law proceedings, the court has broad discretion to divide the assets and liabilities of the parties to a relationship. One asset that is subject to division (or at least a notional attribution within the asset pool) is a redundancy benefit received or expected to be received by a party.

A redundancy occurs when an employee is “made redundant” and terminated from their employment. An employer must compensate an employee made redundant with a payout that is dependent upon the length of their service with that employer. The employee is also entitled to an additional payment which represents any accrued leave and long service leave benefits.

Any such monetary redundancy benefits received by a party can be taken into account in the division of the parties’ assets by the Family Court. For instance, if a party in a Family Court property dispute receives a sizable redundancy payout from their employer and contributes that amount to the relationship, this contribution will be considered a financial contribution made by them. Financial contributions to the relationship are one of the factors that the court uses in deciding what each party will receive from the asset pool.

Depending on the size of the asset pool and size of the redundancy payout (as well as other factors), the inclusion of the redundancy payout could enable the party contributing the redundancy to receive a larger percentage of the asset pool. Even if the redundancy payment is received just prior to, or just after, separation, that redundancy may well be included as part of the asset pool available for distribution because it relates to employment occurring during the relationship and, in that case, the court is likely to regard both parties as having contributed to it .

A more complicated scenario occurs when one party to a family court property matter understands that they will be made redundant in the future. In such a scenario, that party is obligated to disclose the potential redundancy (and the monetary value thereof) to the other party. Failure to properly disclose a future redundancy could result in any financial settlement being set aside due to that non-disclosure. The relevance of a future redundancy depends upon the degree of certainty that it will be received.

Not all redundancy compensation will be considered by the court when dividing property. For instance, if the redundancy package includes a payout for a loss of future earnings in circumstances where the recipient is unable to obtain replacement employment, the court may find that, because these benefits relate to post-separation income, they should not be subject to division. The logic is that, if the redundancy payment is to tide you over during a future period when you won’t be able to find a job, that redundancy should not be treated as an asset.

If Spouse Has Sex-Change, Divorce is Legally Required

on by

divorce-decreeA LAW that forces married couples to divorce if one partner changes sex is “cruel” and should be axed, a NSW upper house Greens MP has said.

Mehreen Faruqi MLC is looking to introduce a bill to the NSW Parliament to amend the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act that currently allows only unmarried people to legally register a change of sex.

“The current state of affairs is cruel and dehumanising,” Faruqi told theStar Observer.

 “No couple should have to decide between a divorce and having incorrect personal documentation.”

Sydney state independent MP Alex Greenwich said the bill, which he is co-sponsoring, was about love and keeping couples together.

“I know many NSW MPs believe in the importance of marriage, and I hope their respect for the institution extends to protecting these loving marriages,” he said.

It’s expected the bill will be introduced in NSW Parliament in August.

Under current NSW laws, which are mirrored across Australia, opposite-sex couples who are married cannot remain so if one partner goes through a sex change and wishes to alter key documents, such as their birth certificate, to reflect their new gender.

In a letter to NSW Premier Mike Baird, Gender Centre General Manager Phinn Borg remarked that this placed couples in a difficult situation: “They are unable to claim that their marriage has broken down in order to obtain a divorce but unless they obtain a divorce, the person who has transitioned is not able to change the record of sex on his or her birth certificate.”

The campaign has also won the support of Australian Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson.

Speaking to the Star Observer, Wilson said it was not the job of government to compel people to end their marriages.

“Forced divorce is one of the worst and most egregious ways government can impose itself inside people’s relationships,” he said.

“Individuals and all of society are better off having couples in stable and happy relationships.

“The job of the government is to respect who individuals are, not tell them who they are.”

If the bill is successful, it could potentially open the way to some of Australia’s first same-sex married couples.

However, campaigners say this would not be inconsistent with the Marriage Act, which they argue is only relevant at the time of solemnisation.

In addition, as some trans* people may not have changed their birth certificate to reflect their gender, there are likely to already be a small number of same-sex married couples in Australia.

Meanwhile, marriage equality advocates met earlier this week to ensure any future legislation paving the way for same-sex couples to wed is inclusive of trans* and intersex Australians.

Facilitated by the Human Rights Law Centre, the meeting was also attended by groups including Australian Marriage Equality, Organisation Intersex International Australia and Transgender Victoria.

Australian Marriage Equality national director Rodney Croome said: “We value dialogue with representatives of the transgender and intersex communities because the marriage equality campaign must be inclusive of all loving committed couples regardless of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.”

Meanwhile, an Adelaide father of four who had a sex change to become a woman has been told to end a 20-year marriage in order to be legally recognised as a female.

Two years ago, the man, in his 40s and who has chosen to remain anonymous, began a transition to womanhood and in October 2013 underwent irreversible gender-reassignment surgery.

But under the South Australian Sexual Reassignment Act she will continue to be a ‘Mr’ unless she gets a divorce.

Greens MLC Tammy Franks raised the case in Parliament and is leading the charge to change the law after a about half a dozen couples facing this predicament told her their stories.

In Parliament, Ms Franks read a letter from the woman who said she was happily married, having just celebrated her 20th wedding anniversary with her wife in May.

“She (my wife) has adapted to my changes remarkably well, as have our four children, who are quite happy with their new Mada,” the letter states.

“But, to complete this journey, and be recognised as the woman I have become, the government tells me I must destroy this happy marriage of 20 years, and break up my family, which is not going to happen.

“So, until this law changes I will be known as Mr.”

Australian Marriage Equality national director Rodney Croome said couples who were forced to divorce faced legal disadvantages as well as an obvious emotional toll.

“It’s much more likely that two people in a non-traditional same-sex relationship will have their legal rights challenged, even if the law says they have certain rights in de facto relationship, particularly in medical emergencies, hospital settings and school settings such as the right to pick up a child from school,” he said.

“Also moving interstate and getting visas overseas can be more difficult.

“Forcing people against their will to get a divorce, to break their solemn vows to each other because someone has decided to be true to themselves demeans marriage.”

Mr Croome said unlike same-sex marriage, which the High Court ruled states could not allow under the constitution, there was no issue with changing the forced divorce provision in the Sexual Reassignment Act.

“The Marriage Act is about who is able to enter into a marriage and is silent on any matters around sexual reassignment,” he said.

Ms Franks said while the number of people affected by this law was small, those marriages were very important to those individuals.

“How can we be saying to a couple who have been married for over 20 years, who have four children and who are loving and happy, that for one of them to fulfil their gender identity and be recognised as the person they have become they have to get a divorce?,” she said.

“That is a cruel and, indeed, inhumane piece of legislation that we currently have in this state.”

In the European Court for Human Rights on November 2013, a decision was issued in H v Finland (Application no. 37359/09) acknowledging that a required forced divorce constitutes interference into the private life. However, the court ultimately rejected the applicant’s claim that her human rights were violated. The applicant Ms H did not want to accept that her marriage was turned into a registered partnership, as prescribed under Finnish law.  

The verdict could be of relevance to another four European countries with similar set-ups. Czech Republic, France, Hungary, UK and some cantons in Switzerland have registered partnerships while requiring couples to divorce for an official recognition of a trans person’s gender.

However, a French court of Appeal in Rennes recently declared that a trans person could not be denied recognition of her gender because of being married.

However, the Court stressed that the Finnish civil partnership for same-sex couples has “almost identical” effects as a marriage and that the “rights and obligations arising either from paternity or parenthood would not be altered”.

A total of 24 countries in Europe still requires trans people to be single to or divorce before their gender is legally recognized.

Regional Areas Deprived of Permanent Family Law Judges

on by

federal-circuit-court-of-australia-family-law-divisionJudges who travel to regional areas to hear family law disputes are handling up to 70 matters a week and sitting until as late as 8pm to get through their caseloads.

As revealed by The Australian, warring families are waiting up to two years to obtain final hearing dates in some regional areas — putting women at greater risk of domestic violence and compromising child welfare. Judge Michael Baumann, the national case management co-­ordinator for the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, which handles most family law matters, said ­regional circuits were a key focus of the court.

However, he said every time judges were sent to regional areas, it meant taking time out of the ­nation’s busy capital cities.

“What happens is that you have to balance the needs of circuits with the rights and needs of litigants in the major registries,” he said.

“That balance is a difficult thing to do. In a perfect world, with more resources, we could spend more time in circuits without any reduction of time in the major ­registries.”

Practitioners believe the caseload in regional areas such as Lismore in northern NSW and Queensland’s Rockhampton is so great, they should be given a permanent judge. Other areas such as Parramatta in Sydney’s west are also stretched.

Judge Baumann said in an area such as Lismore, a circuit judge might have 10 matters listed for final hearing and another 50 or 60 cases to manage over five days. He said judges regularly sat until after 6pm and sometimes as late as 8pm in regional areas, so parties did not have to wait up to two months until they returned.

“It’s not desirable — it’s not optimal for anybody,” he said.

“It’s only done when everybody involved … says it is in the interests of the children or this case that we try and bring some ­finalisation.”

He said judges admired the resilience of country practitioners prepared to work with the court, knowing that otherwise parties would have to wait much longer to get cases on or manage matters by telephone.

In 2012-13, the number of family law applications filed in the Federal Circuit Court (formerly the Federal Magistrates Court) reached 82,600 — a 50 per cent increase on 2002-03.

However, Judge Baumann said the numbers told only part of the story.

He said because of a concerted effort by government and the profession, matters were increasingly settled before reaching court so that only the most difficult disputes, for example those involving violence, mental illness or drug use, now reached the courts — with the most complex of those being reserved for the Family Court.

“Filing numbers per se are misleading,” he said.

“I think you have to look at the complexities of the matters that we are both dealing with to understand that the numbers are not the only story.”

Attorney-General George Brandis last week would not say whether $30 million in cuts to the family law system flagged before the election were off the table.

Judge Baumann said extra resources would enable the court to meet its demands in both the ­regions and major circuits.

Meanwhile, solicitor Joanne Madden has backed a call to increase family court resources in Rockhampton after concern was raised about the high case load in Central Queensland.

Ms Madden, principal at Madden Solicitors, spoke to The Morning Bulletin yesterday after an article published in The Australian revealed judges travelling to regional areas were “overwhelmed” with cases.

Rockhampton was listed, alongside Lismore and Parramatta in New South Wales, as an area where the case load was so great practitioners believed a permanent judge should be appointed.

Ms Madden said Rockhampton needed more circuits or the appointment of a permanent judge.

She compared the city to Cairns, which has a permenant judge, and said the same number of applications were being made in Rockhampton.

Divorce Rate for those aged 70 plus on the Increase

on by

grey-divorceTHEY are the grey-divorcees, the silver-splitters for whom life — and sex — really does begin at 70.

Healthier and wealthier than any previous generation they are hitting the divorce courts in their thousands, many ready to shed the past and look to the future, even in their 80s and 90s.

Between 2010 and mid-2013, more than 3600 couples, where one partner was aged 70 or over, lodged divorce applications in the Family Court or Federal Circuit Court, court statistics show.

Relationships Australia manager Sue Yorston said women were leading the trend.

“It is tied up with living longer. Women are saying well, we’re going to have all these years in retirement and know what? I am going to do what I want to do,” Ms Yorston said.

In 1991, the number of women aged over 50 initiating divorces made up 6.3 per 1000 of the general population, ­according to Australia Bureau of Statistics figures.

By 2011, that had more than doubled — to 15.2 per cent.

“One of the things that surprised us was the number of older women who are having active and enjoyable sexual relationships,” Mr Yorston said.

A Relationships Australia survey asked people about how satisfied they were with their sex life. At 72 per cent, those aged 70 or over said they were just as satisfied with their sex lives as those aged 18 to 23.

Irene and Bob Ungaro, both 71 from Waterloo, have been together for 53 years. Divorce is the last things on their minds.

The couple credit sharing interests, including lawn bowls and volunteering, for keeping the spark in their marriage,

“We were married when we were 17 and we do everything together. We love each other’s company,” Mrs Ungaro said.

One of the highest-profile grey-divorcees is Monty ­Python’s John Cleese, 74, who brought his Alimony Tour to Sydney last year to raise money after divorcing his third wife, Faye Eichelberger, 64. He has since remarried.

Then there was the case in the Family Court in 2010 when a divorce was granted to an 89-year-old wife who represented herself in a case against her husband, aged 90, who she claimed was violent.

In another case the court ruled on the assets of a 90-year-old blind man and his younger wife, aged 67, who is partly deaf. Married for 25 years, the court divided the assets 52.8 per cent to the man, the rest to his wife.

More recently, an 87-year-old woman took her 85-year-old estranged husband to court seeking a settlement.

The couple had been married for just a year although they had been together 10 years.

Based on the Number of Divorce applications where either the Applicant or the Respondent is at least 70 years of age for applications lodged in the Federal Circuit Court or the Family Court of Australia within July 2010 to June 2013 inclusive.

Do Your Will and help Charity

on by

last willPeople who have not made a Will can do so at the Parramatta Salvation Army in Smith Street, for a fee/donation of $50 plus.

Volunteer solicitors will draw up simple Wills at the Salvos Wills Day on Tuesday, June 17, helping the needy at the same time.

Those who are interested in taking advantage of the Wills Day should make an appointment by phoning Rosemary on 9266-9631, from Monday to Friday, between 9am to 4.30pm.

Delays in family law matters ‘not all bad’ says solicitor

on by

federal-circuit-court-of-australia-family-law-divisionRockhampton solicitor Allan Grant believes a wait before a family court trial isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Mr Grant, a partner of Grant and Simpson Lawyers, said there was a “significant amount of work” for Federal Circuit Court judges in Rockhampton.

He said once a trial had been allocated, it could take three to six months to be heard.

But Mr Grant said those three months were needed to prepare for the trial.

And according to Mr Grant, waiting isn’t always a bad thing.

He said statistics had shown up to 90% of family law matters were settled before they went to trial.

“Some delays assist parties trying to sort things out and they do,” he said.

Mr Grant said there may even be some danger in rushing matters to court, without giving the couple time for more mediation.

Although he said a permanent judge was not a necessity, Mr Grant agreed more circuits throughout the year could see trials move through the courts faster.

“If they had more circuits just for trials, it would be good,” he said.

“It works pretty well, but there are cases that slip through the cracks.”