Quarterly Essay 17: ‘Kangaroo Court’: Family Law in Australia
By John Hirst
()
About this ebook
This is a measured yet unsparing appraisal which interleaves individual cases with compelling legal and moral argument. Hirst takes us deep into the workings of the Court and the domestic apocalypses it sees every day.
He explores the Court's fervour to uphold the best interests of the child no matter what and traces its chilling consequence: a court where malicious allegations regularly go unpunished. He notes the Court's enormous power over individual lives, as well as its self-proclaimed status as a 'caring court', and wonders at its ability to overlook the defiance of its own authority. In closing, he considers how to reform an institution that has bred antagonism and extremism and too often entrenched paranoia and despair. Lucid and urgent, 'Kangaroo Court' is a cautionary tale about the perils of high-mindedness when it comes to dealing with the breakdown of families.
‘When Family Court judges talk piously of the 'caring court', I wish they could hear the roar of pain that their piety has caused.’ —John Hirst, ‘Kangaroo Court’
‘An Emile Zola-style pamphlet of accusation against our family law system which shatters the court’s last remaining intellectual pretensions to self-defence.’ —Herald Sun
John Hirst is a widely respected historian and social commentator. A former reader in history at La Trobe University, he is a member of the Film Australia board and the National Museum council. He is the author of numerous books, including The Australians: Insiders and Outsiders on the National Character since 1770, Freedom on the Fatal Shore: Australia’s First Colony, Sense and Nonsense in Australian History, The Shortest History of Europe and Australian History in 7 Questions.
John Hirst
John Hirst was a member of the History Department at La Trobe University from 1968 to 2007. He has written many books on Australian history, including Convict Society and Its Enemies, The Strange Birth of Colonial Democracy, The Sentimental Nation, Sense and Nonsense in Australian History and The Shortest History of Europe.
Read more from John Hirst
Freedom on the Fatal Shore: Australia’s First Colony Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Australian History in 7 Questions Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Sense and Nonsense in Australian History Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLooking for Australia Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Australians: Insiders and Outsiders on the National Character since 1770 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
Related to Quarterly Essay 17
Titles in the series (93)
Quarterly Essay 18 Worried Well: The Depression Epidemic and the Medicalisation of Our Sorrows Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsQuarterly Essay 1 In Denial: The Stolen Generations and the Right Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Quarterly Essay 9 Beautiful Lies: Population and Environment in Australia Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsQuarterly Essay 7 Paradise Betrayed: West Papua's Struggle for Independence Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsQuarterly Essay 12 Made in England: Australia's British Inheritance Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsQuarterly Essay 4 Rabbit Syndrome: Australia and America Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsQuarterly Essay 26 His Master's Voice: The Corruption of Public Debate Under Howard Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsQuarterly Essay 13 Sending Them Home: Refugees and the New Politics of Indifference Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsQuarterly Essay 5 Girt By Sea: Australia, the Refugees and the Politics of Fear Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsQuarterly Essay 14 Mission Impossible: The Sheikhs, the U.S. and the Future of Iraq Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsQuarterly Essay 10 Bad Company: The Cult of the CEO Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsQuarterly Essay 57 Dear Life: On Caring for the Elderly Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Quarterly Essay 11 Whitefella Jump Up: The Shortest Way to Nationhood Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsQuarterly Essay 2 Appeasing Jakarta: Australia's Complicity in the East Timor Tragedy Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsQuarterly Essay 36 Australian Story: Kevin Rudd and the Lucky Country Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsQuarterly Essay 8 Groundswell: The Rise of the Greens Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsQuarterly Essay 6 Beyond Belief: What Future for Labor? Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsQuarterly Essay 23 The History Question: Who Owns The Past? Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsQuarterly Essay 21 What's Left?: The Death of Social Democracy Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsQuarterly Essay 16 Breach of Trust: Truth, Morality and Politics Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsQuarterly Essay 29 Love and Money: The Family and the Free Market Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsQuarterly Essay 32 American Revolution: The Fall of Wall Street and the Rise of Barack Obama Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsQuarterly Essay 35 Radical Hope: Education and Equality for Australia Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsQuarterly Essay 3 The Opportunist: John Howard and the Triumph of Reaction Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsQuarterly Essay 15 Latham's World: The New Politics of the Outsiders Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsQuarterly Essay 20 A Time for War: Australia as a Military Power Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsQuarterly Essay 24 No Fixed Address: Nomads and the Fate of the Planet Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsQuarterly Essay 41 The Happy Life: The Search for Contentment in the Modern World Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Quarterly Essay 22 Voting for Jesus: Christianity and Politics in Australia Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Quarterly Essay 25 Bipolar Nation: How to Win the 2007 Election Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
Related ebooks
Understanding Canadian Law Four-Book Bundle: Youth and the Law / Freedom of Expression / Crime Scene Investigations / Life or Death Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsChaos At The Crossroads: Family Law Reform in Australia Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsUnder Arrest: Canadian Laws You Won't Believe Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsADR and the Courts: A Manual for Judges and Lawyers Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Criminal Code Act Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Limits of the Legal Process: A Study of Landlords, Law and Crime Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsAppearing Before the Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission (IBAC) Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Bollocks People Tell You or Are You Fucked In The Head? Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFamily Law Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsGood Courts: The Case for Problem-Solving Justice Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Look of Love Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFeckless Judges Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsToughing It Out: Adventures of a Global Entrepreneur Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsCannon Law Firm: Guidebook to Oklahoma Criminal Law Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsWithout Prejudice: Nailing the Standard Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsToughing It Out Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsBorn in Hope: The Early Years of the Family Court in Australia Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsJustice of the Heart Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsWho Takes This Child?: A Parents’ Guide to Child Protection in Canada Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsIntimacy Undone: Marriage, Divorce and Family Law In India Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThis Is The Truth: Authority and Jurisdiction Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Legal Eagles of Children's Advocacy Centers:: A Lawyer's Guide to Soaring in the Courtroom Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsBroken: Children, Parents and the Family Courts Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsEvery Canadian's Guide to the Law Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Supreme Court and Us Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSomething for Everyone Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsAMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM INC: Rogue Prosecutions in an Era of Mass Incarceration Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
Law For You
Law For Dummies Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Win In Court Every Time Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The ZERO Percent: Secrets of the United States, the Power of Trust, Nationality, Banking and ZERO TAXES! Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Dictionary of Legal Terms: Definitions and Explanations for Non-Lawyers Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Contracts Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLegal Words You Should Know: Over 1,000 Essential Terms to Understand Contracts, Wills, and the Legal System Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Common Law Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Legal Writing in Plain English: A Text with Exercises Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Know Your Rights: A Survival Guide for Non-Lawyers Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Pro Se Litigant's Civil Litigation Handbook: How to Represent Yourself in a Civil Lawsuit Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Estate & Trust Administration For Dummies Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSummary of Tom Wheelwright's TaxFree Wealth Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings8 Living Trust Forms: Legal Self-Help Guide Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Criminal Law Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsNo Stone Unturned: The True Story of the World's Premier Forensic Investigators Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Everything Guide To Being A Paralegal: Winning Secrets to a Successful Career! Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5How to Think Like a Lawyer--and Why: A Common-Sense Guide to Everyday Dilemmas Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Executor's Guide, The: Settling a Loved One's Estate or Trust Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsWin Your Case: How to Present, Persuade, and Prevail--Every Place, Every Time Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Verbal Judo, Second Edition: The Gentle Art of Persuasion Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Paralegal's Handbook: A Complete Reference for All Your Daily Tasks Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Everything Executor and Trustee Book: A Step-by-Step Guide to Estate and Trust Administration Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Wills and Trusts Kit For Dummies Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Socratic Method: A Practitioner's Handbook Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The LLC and Corporation Start-Up Guide: Your Complete Guide to Launching the Right Business Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Business Law Basics: A Legal Handbook for Online Entrepreneurs and Startup Businesses Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5
Reviews for Quarterly Essay 17
0 ratings0 reviews
Book preview
Quarterly Essay 17 - John Hirst
Quarterly Essay
Quarterly Essay is published four times a year by Black Inc., an imprint of Schwartz Publishing Pty Ltd
Publisher: Morry Schwartz
ISBN 186 395 3418
ISSN 1832-0953
Subscriptions (4 issues): $49 a year within Australia incl. GST (Institutional subs. $59). Outside Australia $79. Payment may be made by Mastercard,Visa or Bankcard, or by cheque made out to Schwartz Publishing. Payment includes postage and handling.
To subscribe, fill out and post the subscription form on the last page of this essay, or subscribe online at:
www.quarterlyessay.com
Correspondence and subscriptions should be addressed to the Editor at:
Black Inc.
Level 5, 289 Flinders Lane
Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia
Phone: 61 3 9654 2000
Fax: 61 3 9654 2290
Email: quarterlyessay@blackincbooks.com
http://www.quarterlyessay.com
Editor: Chris Feik
Management: Sophy Williams
Production Co-ordinator: Caitlin Yates
Publicity: Meredith Kelly
Design: Guy Mirabella
Printer: Griffin Press
CONTENTS
Introduction John Hirst
KANGAROO COURT
Family Law in Australia
John Hirst
CORRESPONDENCE
Paul Kelly, Paul Bongiorno, Mungo MacCallum, Natasha Cica, Alex Miller, Raimond Gaita
Contributors
INTRODUCTION
Until recently I knew only as much or as little about the Family Court as anyone who follows current affairs. Two or three years ago I was sufficiently disturbed by what I was learning to open a newspaper cuttings file: this signals that the subject may be one on which I write someday
. Last year, suddenly, I was in the Family Court. I was not a principal in the case; I was appointed by the Court to supervise Steve, a student of mine, when he saw his children. His wife claimed he was a danger to them. My job was to watch him closely and to end the access and remove the children if danger loomed.
The visits lasted two hours on a Saturday morning and took place at an outer suburban McDonald’s. Within half an hour of our first visit, I knew that my responsibilities would be light. Steve played exuberantly and imaginatively with his boys, who were plainly delighted to be with him. He wiped noses, changed nappies and settled disputes with a practised hand.
For six months I lived close to a man who had the common experience in divorce of being brought under suspicion and having to prove himself innocent. The day Steve was told of his wife’s accusations was the day I determined that I must write about this Court. I have now studied the Court intensively and this essay is the outcome. I am grateful to Black Inc. for allowing it to be part of their Quarterly Essay series.
The system I describe here, or at least some part of it, may soon be modified. After the most recent parliamentary review of the Family Court, the Commonwealth government has decided to implement what it hopes will be significant changes. There have been earlier attempts to change the Family Court, which the Court has ignored or frustrated. The account that I offer of how this occurred should assist those attempting the latest reform. I will assess the government’s reform plans at the end of the essay.
For the last fifteen years the Court has been symbolised by its chief justice, Alastair Nicholson, who retired in 2004. He was highly ambitious for his Court, ferocious in its defence and scathing of its critics. Much of the essay is an argument with him. He was appointed by the Hawke Labor government, but Labor as well as Coalition MPs became highly critical of him. He in turn did not hide his contempt for the politicians. He has been replaced as chief justice by Diana Bryant who is much quieter and conciliatory. It is too early to say whether she will change the outlook and practice of the Court.
The Family Law Act prohibits the discussion of its cases in a way that would reveal the identity of the people concerned. The names of the people I have interviewed have accordingly been changed. I am very grateful to Paul Walton, Graham Sweetland and Julian Aston who have allowed me to make public their experiences and their views of the Court.
The essay has benefited from the critical reading of Robert Manne and George Winterton. Jeremy Sammut has been more than a research assistant; he has been a keen collaborator. My thanks to them.
John Hirst
"KANGAROO
COURT"
Family Law
in Australia
John Hirst
I am writing to voice my disgust as to my treatment by your Kangaroo Court known as the Family Court. – Submission no. 68 to the 1992 Select Committee on the Family Law
THE CARING COURT
One of the gravest failings of the Family Court derives from the noble intentions of its founders.
The Family Law Act of 1975 which established the Court was a progressive social reform of the Whitlam Labor government. It was not an exclusively government measure; members on both sides were allowed a free vote and Liberals had been among those working for divorce law reform. The Act removed fault as a ground for divorce and replaced it with irretrievable breakdown, to be indicated by a one-year separation. The aim was to allow couples to part without the trauma and contrivance of one partner proving fault against the other. Marriages would be buried decently and humanely. The business of dividing property, arranging maintenance and determining custody of children would remain, but these were to be settled in a simple, flexible and inexpensive way. Litigation was to be discouraged and the Court was to be staffed by social workers and counsellors as well as judges. It was to be a court of an entirely new sort, a caring court
or a helping court
.
If proceedings were to be simple, flexible and cheap, why, say the wits, were lawyers put in charge of them? Proceedings quickly became complex, rule-bound and expensive – which was not entirely the fault of the lawyers because property settlements and custody cases can be very complex. But though the caring court
looked more and more like an ordinary court, it hesitated to act like an ordinary court when its orders were disobeyed.
The disobeying of a court order is known as contempt of court and is the offence that threatens the foundations of our society. We are governed by the rule of law and once courts have settled the law, it has to be obeyed by governments and citizens alike. To ensure that their orders are obeyed, courts have large, discretionary powers to fine and imprison those who defy them. Though it was to be a court of a new sort, the Family Court had been equipped with these powers.
Within months of the Court opening, a Family Court judge used these powers to deal with a man who had defied a court order. His offence was indeed gross. His former wife had custody of their children and since he had been violent towards her, he had been put under a restraining order.
One day he burst into her house unannounced, waving a gun, and threatened to kill his son if he did not come with him. The judge sent him to prison for twenty-eight days. From his prison cell, he appealed to the Full Family Court to release him.
The Full Court under the leadership of its first chief, Elizabeth Evatt,was embarrassed at their new caring court
acting in this crude, old-fashioned way. It immediately set down for itself rules to limit the powers it had been given to punish contempt. An offender had to be properly tried for the contempt, and imprisonment was to be used only as a last resort; counselling, fines and recognisances should be considered first. In the case before them, the appeal judges were disturbed at the trial judge opting immediately for imprisonment, which seemed the more unnecessary since the offender was to face charges in a criminal court, which could well result in a gaol sentence. They released the man from gaol. (The trial judge had been well aware that the offender was facing criminal charges; he reasoned that since the man was still at large he needed to be taught a lesson immediately so that his former wife might feel safe.)
However, the Court quickly became much more hard-headed, as it regularly had to deal with cases of men abducting children from their mothers. The offenders were given gaol sentences. The Court declared that though it was a helping court, its orders had to be obeyed. Others who may contemplate disobedience of the Court need to know that calculated and grave contempt of its orders will not be tolerated.
One abduction case, G and G (1981), was of great significance. A father had abducted his son from the mother and lived with him for four years before they were discovered. The man was sent to gaol for two and a half years for defying the Court’s orders. His offence was that he had isolated his son from his mother, but was the Court now going to damage the boy further by depriving him of his father, with whom he got on well? The judge gave the matter earnest consideration because judges are charged under the Family Law Act to give paramount consideration to the welfare of the child. The judge decided that in a contempt matter the welfare of the child is not the paramount consideration, though it is a matter that must be considered
. This approach was upheld by the Full Court when the father appealed against his imprisonment. Chief Judge Evatt, conceding that the imprisonment of the father may cause suffering to the child, nevertheless said: If no punishment is imposed, or if lenience is shown, the court’s power to protect not only the individual child concerned, but also many other children, may be diminished.
These hard-headed pronouncements were all made in cases where fathers did not have custody of their children and had taken matters into their own hands. When the Court came to consider breaches of orders by custodial parents (chiefly mothers), it returned to soft-headedness. The typical case was where a mother contrived to deny a father access to his children, even though he had court orders allowing access (usually it is for every second weekend and half the school holidays). In considering its response to such breaches, the Court declared that the paramount interests of this particular child must prevail. Since the Court could scarcely fine or imprison a custodial mother without having some effect on the child, these options were effectively abandoned. So the caring court
re-emerged.
The Court was not impelled to this decision by the Family Law Act, which gave untrammelled power to punish for contempt, and in adopting it the Court ignored its own judgements in the abduction cases. Just as the Court had there imagined, leniency had disastrous consequences for children. Since access orders were defied with impunity, thousands of children were kept from their fathers, though the Court had ruled that their best interests required that they see them.
Mothers contrive to deny access to fathers by being away when the father calls, or claiming that the child is ill or does not want to go, or alleging that the father is mistreating the child – or simply moving to a new location. Mothers frequently have good reason to fear access: violent fathers use the contact to re-open old quarrels, to attack the mother and unsettle the children. The Court allows that the custodial parent can deny access with reasonable excuse. If the father is violent, the mother can ask the Court to vary its order and deny him access. If the Court allows access to continue, the pick-up point will be a supervised contact centre where the man will not see his ex-wife. But mothers are not simply keeping away unsatisfactory fathers; decent fathers are being denied access to their children. Mothers who have nothing more to fear from the Court than a slap on the wrist, can, if they wish, exclude fathers from their children’s lives.
The Court itself is not in any matter responsible for enforcing its orders. A father who is denied access must bring action in the Court and either bear the costs of a lawyer ($3000 a day minimum) or conduct the case himself. But even if he wins the case, the mother will not suffer a penalty that will deter her. When the next contact visit falls due, she may well behave in exactly the same way. The Court has made clear in its judgements that the custodial parent is not to be the judge of whether contact is beneficial. However, by making the best interests of the particular child the test when enforcement is being considered, the Court has given the custodial parent de facto control over access.
So the logic of the Family Court is as follows:
The best interests of the child require that they have contact with both parents.
However, if the custodial parent is determined to deny access to the other parent, Then the best interests of the child require that the child have contact with only one parent.
Of course one would prefer that a custodial parent did not have to be coerced into providing access. But if the