Hi all,

Thanks to help from a couple of colleagues I found these stats (see attachment) on outcomes in the Family Court:

www.familycourt.gov.au/presence/connect/www/home/about/business_administration/statistics/statistics_public_interest/

"Family Court of Australia, Residence and Contact orders - Any Application, For children by outcome 1994-95 to 2000-01"

It shows that 'Joint Residence' had dropped from 5.1% in 1994-95 to 2.5% in 2000-01.

Worse, 'Joint Residence' includes Equal Parenting but also all other variations of Joint Residence - and it offers no precise definition for this (presumably anything greater than every second weekend contact).

There are no recent statistics available.  WHY NOT ????

I also located another source of statistics which can be found at

http://www.familycourt.gov.au/presence/resources/file/eb000240ff79dc9/iijca2.pdf

"Submission of Family Court of Australia, Part B Statistical Analysis and Part C Full Court Analysis, Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, Inquiry Into Joint Custody Arrangements in the Event of Separation."

In FY2002-03

number of consent applications                       11,607

number of applications for Final Orders          16,695

number of parenting and other matters              1,115

Applications for Final Orders by Primary Issue  FY 2002-03

Children and financial issues                       12.2%

Children's issues                                         53.6%

Financial issues                                           28.5%

Procedural issues                                         1.0%

Survival Pattern of Applications  FY 2000-01

Applications initiated                              100%

Case conference / directions hearing        90%

Mediation / conciliation events                 58%

Pre-hearing conference                           36%

Trial preparation                                     21%

Trial hearing commenced                          13%

Case heard to judgment                            6%

I presume they are suggesting that only 6% of all applications for Final Orders - eg approx 16,695 - went to a Final Hearing where Final Orders were handed down.  That is, about 1000 cases a year go to the Final Hearing where Final Orders were handed down.

The argument that only 6% go to a Final Hearing is used frequently by opponents of Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, suggesting that these are mostly the hardcore cases involving violent and abusive men.

But this report states that "Family Violence Events" were a moderate or high importance factor taken into consideration in only 24.2% of Final Hearing cases.

The report concludes:

"Despite criticisms that the Court is biased towards mothers and against fathers when residence of children is an issue, that data show that parents themselves are more likely to agree that the primary carer after separation should be the mother than is the Court to order such an outcome.  This suggests that the reasons for the so-called 'mother preference' is societal rather than specific to the Court - or the Family Law Act.

The frequency with which allegations of child abuse are not only alleged but are considered by judges to be relevant to children's best interests also indicate how perilous are the lives of many parents whose parenting arrangements come before the Court".

Obviously this author was not skilled in social science research or basic reasoning because their logic is flawed.  For example:

1. fathers may surrender to unfair access terms because they know their chances in the Family Court are minimal.

2. cases that are not voluntarily agreed on are more likely to be cases where fathers want Equal Residency and so we should expect a far higher incidence of Equal Residency outcomes in the Family Court if it was not biased.

The implication of the last paragraph is that all the perpetrators of child abuse are male (because of its juxtaposition with criticism of bias against fathers).  Of the cases where family violence events where of moderate or high importance (24.2% of Final Hearings) it is not specified how many involve violence or sexual abuse against the children, and of these % by mothers and % by fathers, and how many related to violence between the parents, and of these, perpetrated by the man, the woman or both.

I have rung the Family Court of Australia and they tell me no statistics have been kept on

1. Incidences of separation

2. % resolved without need to go to court

Resolved without need for court

3. % where both parents seek Equal Parenting Time or more.

4. Of these, % which result in Equal Parenting Time.

Resolved after going to court

5. % where both parents seek Equal Parenting Time or more.

6. Of these, % which result in Equal Parenting Time.

This is outrageous !  How can the Government possibly gauge success of its FRCs if it has no baseline ?  They can easily go back through the cases and clarify those statistics.

The Family Court of Australia is a closed shop.  It is closed to public scrutiny so as not to expose its mis-implementation of the Family Law Act and its prejudice against fathers at the expense of children.

We need to pressure the government and the Family Court of Australia to present the relevant statistics we need to gauge if any real changes are taking place.

The woman I was speaking to from the Family Court agreed that in the previous department she worked in statistics were rigorously kept on just about everything and she found it quite bizarre !

We need to pressure the Family Court and Attorney General's Dept to generate these statistics.  (Otherswise we are all just pissing in the wind).

Regards,

Geoff H

R O L L I N G   T H U N D E R