This study compares levels of couple agreement about positive and satisfying features of their relationship as reported by a remarried sample (n = 70) couples and a more general sample of couples largely in their first marriage or committed de facto relationship (n = 100 couples). The ENRICH inventory (Olson et al., 1982) was used with the general sample and the ENRICH-Anew inventory (Schultz & Schultz, 1987) was used for the remarried sample, thereby providing the measures of positive couple agreement, which can in turn serve as indicators for strengthening family relationships. There were no statistically significant differences between the two samples, indicating commonalities in stresses and strengths experienced by the two samples. However, there are suggestions in the data that issues related to children and parenting were subject to lower levels of agreement for the remarried couples. The comparison couples produced lower levels of agreement in the areas of conflict resolution and relating to partner's family and friends.

In the Macquarie Dictionary, a family is defined as “parents and their children, whether dwelling together or not”. To be a couple with no children puts one outside of this category when family is defined in that way. Indeed, it is only recently that the term “single parent family” has been coined and accepted as an alternative type of family structure. Prior to the seventies the reference was to the “single mother and her child” and earlier still, “unmarried mothers” and “illegitimate children” — “fillius nullis”, child of nobody, until the Children's Equality of Status Act in 1977.

Society still appears to hold the nuclear family as the ideal2 that is a male and a female, preferably married with one or more children. A couple remain a couple and are not considered a family until such time as they have a child. For those who wish to have a child but are unable to have one, this constitutes a painful situation, but one towards which society feels compassion and in the view of the author, supports the notion that couples are entitled to a child.

All who work with broken families know that disputes as to custody and access of children are the most difficult of all cases to resolve and often create great bitterness. Yet the law relating to them is exceedingly simple. It can be expressed in nine words: “The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration.”

Despite its apparent simplicity though, the law and practices relating to custody and access are undergoing a great deal of heart-searching. If legal periodical literature of other countries is an accurate reflection of concern, it seems that very radical re-thinking is occurring abroad. Some of this is likely to rub off on this country. For, whether we like it or not, the world is getting smaller and the welfare of children is becoming more and more an international concern. The ratification by Australia of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is a timely reminder of this. The incidence of child abduction, kidnapping and inter-country marriages, and of course, inter-country adoption, surely testifies to the fact that we should now be looking at the care and well-being of children as a global issue.

The position of single parent families in Australia is examined from a historical perspective, and this is a prelude to a discussion of service provision in maternity hospitals and Baby Health Centres in New South Wales, which are now staffed under the auspices of the Community Health Program. The paper is concerned with issues raised by criteria used to predict child abuse. These criteria are examined from two methodological perspectives; the first applies to the welfare critiques of social control to health service delivery, and the second is an epidemiological critique that notes an extremely high error rate in predicting child abuse at one maternity hospital.

Some data from the New South Wales Maternal/Perinatal Statistics Collection on low birthweight and hospital status is used to discuss some implications of this critique related to service delivery and social class of both providers and recipients of health services.

Throughout 1990, Children Australia has extended an invitation to State Shadow Ministers to express their views and policies in regard to the interests of children.

Their responses tend to indicate some difficulty in responding to demands such as this in the absence of many support resources. It is part of the spirit of Children Australia and the NCBA to provide a forum for the sharing of ideas and information which might help leaders and policy makers to complete their tasks with the interests of children high on the agenda.

From a national perspective, making contact with state and territory shadow ministers was sometimes difficult and there was some turnover in the course of the year among the particular parliamentarians performing these roles. Nevertheless, Shadow Ministers concerned with the interests of children at state and territory levels in December 1990 are listed below. Contributions received to date, including those received earlier in the year, are presented for the information of readers. Any further contributions will be published in a later Issue.

This paper provides a brief account of a group program developed by Alys Key Family Care for parents and pre-school children where the growth of a sound, nurturing relationship has been significantly impaired. HUGS is an acronym for “Happiness, Understanding, Giving and Sharing”. The program has the overall aim of fostering positive interaction, enjoyment and the development of a reciprocal caring, confident bond between parents and children. The group has been evolving since 1987, with many refinements in its conceptualisation along the way. The agency is currently producing a manual which describes in detail the rationale and operation of the program, pilot evaluations, HUGS activities and styles of intervention and support which seem particularly effective within the group.

The issue of surrogacy has attracted spirited and concerned public and professional debate. For some commentators even the term itself is considered a misnomer. In the midst of forceful opposition from feminists, churches, and groups concerned with preserving the “traditional family”, together with powerful support from sections of the medical establishment, certain academics and other high profile individuals, the future of surrogacy in Australia is uncertain. What is certain is that surrogacy challenges people's ideas about acceptable means of family formation both on a personal moral level and from the broader perspective of public policy.

The new-born child arrives in the world with an awesome array of capacities and reflexes. They can suck, cough, cry, squirm, turn their heads and grip objects (Segal and Segal, 1985). As Somerville points out, however, what we have to remember is that all children are born ‘prematurely’, in that their character and personality are yet to be fully formed (1982: 242).

It was Wilhelm Reich, I believe, who clearly portrayed the shock of being born. After 40 weeks or thereabouts of security, the newborn arrives in a world that is far less warm and far more threatening than the womb. The baby is picked up by the legs, slapped briskly and removed from his or her mother. Reich argued that the world was destined to remain in a mess while new residents are greeted in such a fashion. For some children, even in wealthy countries like Australia, those first few minutes set the scene for much of their future lives.