Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T05:24:58.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Family Law Court orders for supervised contact in custodial disputes – unanswered questions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2019

Emily Schindeler Open the ORCID record for Emily Schindeler [Opens in a new window]
Emily Schindeler*
Affiliation:
Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University, Mt Gravatt, Queensland 4122, Australia
*
Author for correspondence: Emily Schindeler, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The focus of this study was on the application of orders for supervised access made by the Australian Family Law Court in cases that involved conflicting claims by custodial and noncustodial parents. Based on accessible Court transcripts for the 28-month period ending in early 2019, 103 cases involving 172 children were identified in which orders required supervision for visitation and/or changeovers. The patterns found through thematic analysis suggest that there is a shift to increasing use of final orders involving supervision through child contact centers as either an indeterminate or permanent arrangement. This shift has significant implications for current models of supervised access/changeover, and a greater understanding in terms of the outcomes being achieved is required.

Keywords

child contact centersupervision ordersFamily Law Courtcustodial disputes
Type
Articles
Information
Children Australia , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , December 2019 , pp. 194 - 201
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Allen Consulting Group. (2013). Research on Family Support Program family law service. Report to Attorney General’s Department. Sydney/Melbourne/Canberra: Allen Consulting Group. Retrieved from https://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Documents/ResearchOnFamilySupportProgramFamilyLawServices/research-on-family-support-program-family-law-services-may2013.pdf Google Scholar
Attorney General’s Department. (2014). Children’s Contact Services: Guiding principles framework for good practice. Canberra: Australian Government. Retrieved from https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/06_2014/childrens_contact_services_guiding_principles_framework_for_good_practice.pdf Google Scholar
Australian Children’s Contact Service Association. (2009). Standards for Children’s Contact Services. Retrieved from http://accsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ACCSA-Standards.pdf Google Scholar
Australian Children’s Contact Service Association. (2018). Submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission Review of the Family Law System Reform Discussion Paper. Retrieved from https://www.alrc.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/family-law-207_accsa_family_law_review_submission_2018_13_august_a.pdf Google Scholar
Australian Law Reform Commission. (2018). Submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission Review of the Family Law System Reform (Discussion Paper 265). Retrieved from https://www.alrc.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/family-law_265._australian_childrens_contact_service_association.pdf Google Scholar
Bala, N., Saini, M., & Spitz, S. (2016). Supervised access as a stepping stone rather than a destination: A qualitative review of Ontario services & policies for assisting families transitioning from supervised access. Queen’s Law Research Paper Series 2016-085. Canada: Queen’s University Faculty of Law.Google Scholar
Birnbaum, R., & Alaggia, R. (2006). Supervised visitation: A call for a second generation of research. Family Court Review, 44(1), 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birnbaum, R., & Chipeur, S. (2010). Supervised visitation in custody and access disputes: Finding legal solutions for complex family problems. Canadian Family Law Quarterly, 29(1), 79–94.Google Scholar
Bowen, D., & Fry, D. (1995). Supervised access, facilitated access: What’s in a Name? Australian Family Lawyer, 10(4), 13–16.Google Scholar
Commerford, J., & Hunter, C. (2015). Children’s Contact Services Key Issues, CFCA Paper No 35 2015. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Services. Retrieved from https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/childrens-contact-services Google Scholar
Commonwealth of Australia. (2007). A guideline for Family Law Courts and Children’s Contact Services. Barton, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/fcoaweb/reports-and-publications/publications/family+violence/a-guideline-for-family-law-courts-and-childrens-contact-services Google Scholar
Easteal, P., Prest, A., & Thornton, F. (2019). Discounting the mother-child relationship in parenting orders: A snapshot in time. Australian Journal of Family Law, 32, 221–248.Google Scholar
Family Court of Australia. (2016). Children’s Contact Centres and Services. Retrieved from http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/fcoaweb/family-law-matters/getting-help/childrens-contact-centres-services/ Google Scholar
Kiely, E., O’Sullivan, N., & Tobin, M. (2019). Centre based supervised child parent contact in Ireland: The views and experiences of fathers, supervisors and key stakeholders. Child and Youth Services Review 100, 494–502. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740918311484?via%3Dihub CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KPMG. (2016). Future focus of the Family Law Services: Final report. Retrieved from https://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/Families/FamilyRelationshipServices/Documents/AGD-Family-Law-Services-Final-Report.pdf Google Scholar
Lone Fathers Association. (2018). Submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission Review of the Family Law System Reform Discussion Paper. Retrieved from https://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/family-law-system/submissions Google Scholar
Saini, M, Newman, J., & Christensen, M. (2017). When supervision becomes the only plan: An analysis of long-term use of supervised access and exchange services after separation and divorce. Family Court Review, 55(4), 604–616. doi:10.1111/fcre.12307 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schindeler, E. (2019). Assessing allegations of child sex abuse in custody disputes. Children Australia, 44(1), 5–12. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/children-australia/article/assessing-allegations-of-child-sex-abuse-in-custody-disputes/F41EFAB2D107856C671D909D380A1918 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, P. (2014). Are judges getting the full story through court-ordered reports and investigations? A critical analysis of the discourse of disbelief in an allegation of child sexual abuse. Children Australia, 39(3), 137–146. doi:10.1017/cha.2014.16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, G., Carson, R., Fehlberg, B., Hunter, R., Tomison, A., Ip, J., & Dewar, J. (2005). Children’s Contact Services: Expectation and experience. Australian Institute of Family Studies, Griffith University, University of Melbourne and Attorney General’s Department, Australian Government. Retrieved from http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/52122/20050906-0000/www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/viewasattachmentPersonal/final%20report.pdf Google Scholar
Tinder, L. (2007). Dangerous dads and malicious mothers. In Maclean, M. (Ed.), Parenting after partnering: Containing conflict after separation (pp. 81–94). Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar

Australian Family Law Court Cases

Atkinson & Atkinson [2017] FamCa 274 Google Scholar
Betros & Betros [2016] Fa,CA 225 Google Scholar
Goldman & Goldman (NO.2) [2017] FamCA 531 Google Scholar
Jamal & Akbar [2017] FamCA 586 Google Scholar
Mayer & Mayer (NO.2) [2018] FamCA 910 Google Scholar
Merritt & Merritt [2018] FamCA 1107 Google Scholar
Morton & Macky [2018] FamCA2 Google Scholar
Nardini & Nardini [2019] FamCA 37 Google Scholar
Newport & Newport [2018] FamCA 472 Google Scholar
Prentice & Wilfred [2017] FamCA 290 Google Scholar