Turner Judy: Care of Children Bill Status of Children Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Turner Judy: Care of Children Bill Status of Children Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:621;Page:16725] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 When I first heard about the Government’s intention to revamp the guardianship law I was impressed. I realised it would require courage and that this would be a controversial issue. Throughout the entire process I do not think I have ever doubted the sincerity of those taking responsibility for the design of the legislation. However today as I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the third readings and although I still remain convinced of their sincerity I have to say that in respect of many of the key provisions in this legislation those responsible are quite wrong. 
When the Care of Children Bill passed its first reading it did not contain any boundaries around the amount of time someone had to be actively involved in a child’s life before that person could be appointed as an additional guardian. As the Hon Nick Smith pointed out during the Committee stage the Property (Relationships) Act requires a greater longevity of association before property can be divided than the 1-year requirement—now added to this legislation—before an individual can be appointed as an additional guardian of a child. What this actually means is that a couple have to be together longer to get their hands on half the whiteware. They have to be together longer to get half the pots and pans than they have to be together before one can be appointed as the additional guardian of a child. 
While nobody wants to prevent the possibility in an emergency of appointing an additional guardian where time may not be available to establish longevity—nobody minds the exception—surely the law should reflect best practice. And best practice would surely be that a long-term stable relationship has been first established between the child and the new guardian before guardianship is conferred on the other person. I do not believe and United Future does not believe that 1 year is long enough. 
Traditionally social parenting arrangements have kicked in only when biological parenting arrangements have fallen over and of course adoption and kinship caregivers accounted for most of those arrangements. But today children are raised in a whole raft of social parenting scenarios and if history is to teach us anything it is that in part children develop a healthy identity by having clearly traceable links to both of their biological parents and the extended family and an established and nurturing relationship with both parents. Regardless of however many households a child’s family is spread over and the reasons for these diverse arrangements the basic needs of a child do not change. The move towards open adoption in the long-term best interests of children is a good example of the recognition given to the importance of the natural family regardless of the circumstances in which the child is raised. 
The legislation improves much of the language associated with the decisions of the Family Court—a language associated with the care arrangements for children. However despite a change in language there is very little to suggest that the outcomes of the Family Court will improve in any measurable way. Parenting orders replace the terms “custody order” and “access order” but the truth is that all the other provisions that dovetail into family law to make it work—for instance the benefits system—are unable to facilitate the more equitable parenting arrangements that those proposing this legislation claim will happen. We also lack an adequately resourced courts system able to process parental conflict in a timely manner. 
We have to keep in mind that those families requiring the service of the Family Court to settle issues surrounding the care of their children are families at war. Most separating and divorcing couples manage to put aside their personal differences to agree to care arrangements that will reflect their ongoing commitment to their children. But in a small number of cases the conflict is of a kind that either one parent does not trust his or her ex-partner to safely or adequately care for the children or the children are just mere pawns in a very destructive tug of war. 
I question how vexatious accusations will be dealt with under this legislation. All of us will have received numerous letters from individuals and from men’s support groups up and down the nation claiming vexatious claim after vexatious claim that they have suffered under with no immediate or satisfactory recourse. I heard of a case yet again just this week that happened probably 20 years ago. A father was blocked from having regular access to his child because after the first visit it was determined that as a result of having a weekend with dad the child had contracted worms. My understanding as a parent is that children who enjoy a good run-around outside and a play in the mud contract worms. It is a sign of a good weekend with dad not a bad weekend with dad. However the lengthy battle required was outside the financial reach of this gentleman and he lost regular contact with his child. He still sent money and presents to his child but the child does not remember ever having received presents in the name of his father. Cases such as this do not give me any reassurance about the provision of this revamped legislation. 
Clause 37 was vigorously debated in the Committee stage. In that regard I reiterate one point—that is if best practice is reflected in the ability of parents to be able to support their child through a crisis of such magnitude then any law that undermines best practice is absolutely outrageous. I add one further point in regard to best practice. Because of the way this happens best practice would normally require that a child in this situation would be seen by her family general practitioner. But the adults who step into the breach for parents in this matter are under no obligation should the child require this to use the child’s own general practitioner. So a second area of best practice is able to be overridden by clause 37 and the parents and the safest medical practitioner who should be making this decision and understanding the complicated effects of a termination on the child’s health are kept out of the process. 
Studies in the United States and the United Kingdom show that teenage girls undergoing an abortion are more likely to suffer acute pain requiring painkillers; suffer cervical lacerations; suffer post-abortion infections; and become pregnant again within 2 years. About 29 percent become pregnant again within 2 years and 48 percent have second abortions. These studies show very very clearly that an adult who has the ongoing care of a child must be included in the decision unless there are exceptional circumstances during what constitutes an immense crisis in that child’s life. 
United Future is disappointed because initially this legislation reflected an amazing opportunity to address some of the real concerns that exist in the Family Court. We feel that the Government has dropped the ball badly on this and before too long we will have to look yet again at the ongoing unsatisfactory outcomes of the Family Court. We will have to look at this legislation yet again wondering why so much opportunity was wasted at a time when so much could have been done. In other jurisdictions such as Australia some wonderfully innovative things are happening in the Family Court on this very matter. It is such a huge shame we have failed to look at those options and have settled for something that is very second rate and very second best.