Jenny Mcintosh's Speech On Shared Parenting

Jenny (2) McIntosh is a child psychologist, family therapist and research consultant and is also the director of Family Transitions. She stated that “Since July 2006, a quiet revolution has been occurring in family law, following the amendment to the family law (shared parental responsibility) act. Although the new law promotes shared parenting, it’s a model that doesn’t always work. There’s still a long way to go.”
Welcome, in this speech I will be outlining the key flaws of the shared parenting Act and how this is impacting on children, parents and the family unit. This (3) speech will establish the background of shared parenting, together with an examination of the strengths and weaknesses of the most recent amendment. I am Ryan Baldwin,
The amendment is not the first legislative attempt to address perceived inadequacies of the Family Law Act. The 1975 Act had issues regarding: fathers with shared parenting, re-location of children ,and children being regarded more as property than a responsibility. For the past 35 years, the Family Court of Australia has treated most separated fathers, as if an access visit every second weekend and half the school holidays was enough. Sue Price said “Shared parenting laws are under(7) threat from feminists, with no intention of giving fathers a fair go. In 1996 the Family law act was amended in what was a paradigm shift, by providing for independent representation of children in disputes, so is to protect their rights. This introduced, child advocates. Further amendments to the FLA sought to neutralise terminology, by changing the language in parenting orders such as; custody were replaced with new terms such as residential and non-residential, access and contact. In 2006, the Australian Government introduced a series of changes to the family law system. The “Family law act 1975 was amended to the “Family Law Amendment, (Shared Parental Responsibilities) Act ,2006, commonwealth> (SPR, Act, 2006). This amendment introduced, “rebuttable
Take, for example a case where one parent lived in Ipswich and the other in Tweed Heads. Shared care would require the child to “rotate” between the residences of the parents; this doesn’t supply the child with a stable home, when there is one week alternate with each parent. Children who are continually changing living arrangements have “higher rates of hyperactivity, than children who have a stable home base with one of their parent,". A solution to this would be that the children have a stable home and the parents rotate where they live, keeping the children in the one residency.Professor Nichol-son said, :What the amendment is “really saying is not much about the desires, the needs, and the interests of the child. It's talking about the desires, needs, and the interests of the parents,”(Fullerton, 2009).Parents ought to have more flexible arrangements with shared care. Factors regarding what are more practical for parents ,or easier for parents, should not be considered, only what is in the best interests of the child ought to be. Allowing for flexibility, provides the child to spend time where they would prefer, rather than living where the courts want them too. Thus, providing less stress on the child. Dr McIntosh says children in shared care are more troubled, distressed and anxious, than children who have more flexible arrangements” . There ought to be a higher priority on the child’s best