Search

This paper considers fathers’ understandings and experiences of home after relationship separation – an issue that has received little research attention to date – through interviews with four sepa...

This paper explores 68 Australian children and young people’s understandings of what ‘home’ means for them after their parents’ separation. Home – a familiar yet complex concept of great personal a...

Much of the work on media multiplexity theory (MMT) is based on unestablished relationships, in which more channels are presumed to be indicative of higher relational closeness. But a different set...

In recent years Australia has seen increasing use of digital technology including smartphones and with that, increasing development and availability of online family law resources including digital...

Around the globe, many families are experiencing significant anxieties linked to COVID‐19. These include health concerns and economic pressures, both of which are frequently taking place against a backdrop of various levels of social isolation. In addition, many parents have been juggling home schooling requirements in the face of radically different work arrangements including the loss of employment altogether. Unsurprisingly, additional challenges and stresses are emerging for separated families, family law professionals, and family courts. In this article – written at a point‐in‐time in a rapidly evolving COVID‐19 context – we reflect on key challenges for separated families in Australia, and some of the emerging professional responses., Key Points for the Family Court Community: In the context of COVID‐19, new challenges and stresses are emerging in Australia for separated families, family law professionals, and family law courts.Post‐separation family relationship services and the courts are attempting to assist parents to manage problems that have emerged in the wake of the pandemic; in the context of social distancing, they are under pressure to deliver responses that are safe and are perceived to be safe.While all aspects of the Australian family law system were ill prepared for the disruption of the COVID‐19 pandemic, both services and courts have been quick to respond and adapt.The need for rapid adaptation in response to social distancing has required embracing ‘virtual’ service delivery and ‘virtual’ court hearings. These largely untested processes require evaluation.Though there are obvious and less obvious dangers, we argue that the need to adapt service delivery in the context of a global pandemic is creating unanticipated opportunities for separated parents, family and relationship support services, and family courts.These opportunities and challenges need to be better understood and managed as we move beyond the necessarily immediate responses to the pandemic.

There is an emerging view that the term “high conflict” oversimplifies the nature of destructive family dynamics, especially with respect to the small but resource-intensive group of separated parents who remain deeply enmeshed in legal battles and parental acrimony. In this Article we propose that interparental hatred may be a key relationship dynamic driving the behavior of some in this group. We suggest a distinction between two types of interparental hatred: one that arises from responses to separation-related stresses (reactive hatred) and the other (entrenched hatred) that is indicative of more embedded, dysfunctional interpersonal dynamics and/or personality structures. While reactive hatred is typically time limited and amenable to professional intervention, entrenched hatred tends to overwhelm rationally informed attempts to mediate, negotiate, or even adhere to orders regarding suitable parenting arrangements. We contend that while effective intervention in these cases requires all the generic skills and responses necessary for dealing with highly conflicted disputes, it is also important to name and appropriately challenge interparental hatred when it is detected.

Family life education is neither a formal discipline nor a formally recognized vocation in Australia. Rather, it comprises a loose amalgam of programs, services, and policies - with little reliable evaluation data to guide its activities. Education for family life in Australia has a complex disjointed story, characterized by a marked decline in couple relationship education, on the one hand, and an expansion of parenting education on the other. Our central argument is that supporting and enriching couple relationships is critical to successful parenting. Yet Australian policy - possibly reflecting broader cultural and attitudinal barriers—appears to neglect this important nexus.

The Australian Child Support Scheme aims to ensure that children continue to be supported financially should their parents separate or never live together. Sweeping changes to the Australian Child Support Scheme were introduced between 2006 and 2008, featuring a dramatically different system for the calculation of child support and a more rigorous enforcement regime. The reforms were intended to respond to ongoing concerns about equity, and to changes in social expectations and practices in gender, work, and parenting. In this article we summarise key findings from a large cross‑sequential study of the child support reforms. Although the new formula initially led to lower child support payments, and an increase in the proportion of separated mothers experiencing income disadvantage, payments two years later had increased slightly. More broadly, the new scheme appears to have resulted in little change in separated parents' policy knowledge, parenting arrangements, perceptions of fairness, and child support compliance. Taken together, these findings suggest that Australia may not have made as much progress as it would have liked in this thorny area of social policy - especially in relation to compliance and perceptions of fairness.

Child support compliance continues to be a thorny policy issue. In Australia, major changes to the Child Support Scheme were introduced between 2006 and 2008, featuring a markedly different and purportedly ‘fairer’ system for the calculation of child support. Extra resources were also provided to the Child Support Agency (CSA) to ensure that child support is paid in full and on time. Did these initiatives lead to greater compliance by payers with their child support obligations? This article explores this question by examining child support compliance among several national random samples of CSA clients just prior to, 1 year after, and 3 years after, the introduction of a new child support formula on 1 July 2008. The new formula and strengthened enforcement regime appear to have had very little impact on compliance behaviour in Australia.

Children living in a shared-time parenting arrangement following separation (also known as joint physical custody or dual residence) spend equal or near-equal amounts of day and night time with each parent. Little data exist regarding developmental sequelae of such arrangements for infants. The current study examined a theoretically driven question: Are there associations between quantum of overnight stays away from a primary resident parent and the infant's settledness, or emotion regulation with that parent? Nationally representative parent report data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC) were used. Three age bands were studied and three levels of overnight care contrasted. When parenting style, parental confl ict and socio-economic factors were controlled for, greater number of shared overnight stays for the 0-1 year old and the 2-3 year old groups predicted some less settled and poorly regulated behaviours, but none for the 4-5 year old group. Limits of these data are discussed, including application to the individual case. Findings suggest emotional regulation within the primary infant-parent relationship is one useful index of infant adjustment to parenting time arrangements.

Despite widespread interest in patterns of parenting after separation over the past decade - especially in shared-time arrangements - few studies have explored the detail of post-separation parenting time schedules. This article: (a) provides a detailed snapshot of children's overnight stays with each parent among a national random sample of 408 separated parents registered with the Australian Child Support Agency (CSA); and (b) develops a typology of parenting time that emphasises the contiguity of overnights and the frequency of children's transitions between parents' homes. Parenting time schedules are examined across a range of residence levels from 1-8 overnight stays per fortnight with fathers. While many separated fathers see their children mainly on weekends, the immense diversity of modern parenting time schedules points to a greater sharing of parental responsibilities and richer range of parenting contexts post-separation than previously evident in Australia. The article encourages researchers, parents, practitioners and policymakers to adopt a multi-dimensional view of parenting time rather than focus on time simply as a number or percentage.

Stepping into the Editor's role for this issue of Journal of Family Studies has prompted to me to reflect on the importance of research being made accessible for policy-makers, practitioners, and parents themselves. This is not because the articles in this issue are not accessible for non-researchers! Rather, flowing out of the recent Excellence in Research in Australia (ERA) initiative that seeks to assess 'research quality' within Australia's higher education system, (1) there is some confusion about whether academics' work should be assessed simply by how much and where they publish, or whether the 'real-world' impact of their work should also be counted. Regardless of the direction of ERA, research translation is a topic that needs to be brought into this important debate. Research translation remains a serious problem in Australia. (2) Many researchers do not translate their findings for policy or practice. In addition, while much research is funded in Australia, the end result is that printed reports often sit on tables at conferences and workshops. As a consequence, readers are often left to try to make sense of a piece of research. This is no easy task without relevant expertise in the area of interest. In an ideal research world, how would research translation work? To begin with, researchers would write simply and clearly, and offer ideas on the possible implications of their findings for policy and practice. They would disseminate key findings through the media, specialist seminars, workshops, and conference presentations. Leaders in a field would write review articles summarizing the key studies in an area and draw conclusions for policy and practice on the basis of systematic reviews. Funding bodies (especially government departments and agencies) would help to coordinate events where policymakers, practitioners, researchers, and other interested parties could meet to make sense of research in applied context. In Australia, the latter already happens to some degree. The Australian Institute of Family Studies in Melbourne and the Social Policy Research Centre in Sydney each host a national biennial conference in alternate years; the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia also hosts a national biennial conference; Family Relationship Services Australia hosts an annual conference. For the past 2 years, the Attorney-General's Department has hosted a 2-day Family Law System conference in Canberra. The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) also holds an annual conference where researchers talk about their findings and discuss the implications for social policy. Moreover, the two large Australian longitudinal studies in the social sciences--the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC) and the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey--each hold biennial conferences showcasing studies using their data. At the local level, there are many state-based conferences (e.g., the Queensland Law Society Family Law Residential, and the New South Wales Legal Aid Conference). In addition, many Family Law Pathways Networks hold their own conferences in their respective regions (e.g., Coifs Harbour, Canberra, Toowoomba and Perth). There are also specialist groups, such as the Family Law Council and the Child Support National Stakeholders Engagement Group, that meet regularly with researchers from around Australia to remain in touch with the latest empirical findings. Many other conferences take place, and many other groups exist that make use of research to shape their work. Yet, while there is no shortage of opportunities for researchers to talk about their work, research translation at conferences and workshops continues to be problematic. Often there are too many papers and sessions, and not enough time allocated for the sort of discussions or questions that might assist in linking findings to relevant practice. …

The Labor federal Attorney-General's plan, announced in May 2010, to extend the pre-filing requirement to attend family dispute resolution from parenting disputes to financial (property and spousal maintenance) disputes has encouraged us to think about the assistance currently available for separating parents who seek help to resolve financial issues. Our review of services currently available suggests that, despite the key significance of financial issues for separating parents, sources of assistance on these issues across the family law system are limited and where they do exist are usually issue-specific (e.g., child support), are available once a dispute has already crystallized, and primarily relate to the administration of policy rules and legislation rather than providing advice and support. We suggest that for the current position to be improved and the risk of unjust outcomes following any future introduction of compulsory family dispute resolution for financial disputes reduced, further consideration needs to be given to the diverse financial issues faced by separating parents and the range of skills likely to be needed within the sector to help resolve them.

Sweeping changes to the Australian Child Support Scheme were recently introduced, featuring a dramatically different system for the calculation of child support. The reforms were intended to respond to ongoing concerns about equity and changes in social expectations and practices in gender, work and parenting. The extent to which the new Scheme is 'fairer' and will improve the wellbeing of children and their families needs to be tested. Drawing on published Government data, this article examines the initial distributional impacts of the new Scheme and discusses key policy and research issues arising from these data. At a general level, non-resident parents (mostly fathers) were more likely than resident parents (mostly mothers) to experience net gains under the new Scheme. Low-income families, and resident parents with part-time or casual employment, appear to be among those most likely to have been hardest hit by the recent reforms, though the government modelling suggests that net losses are likely to be $20 or less a week in absolute terms. While the paper does not assess behavioural changes resulting from the child support reforms, it is important to keep a watching brief of how the new Scheme is evolving on the ground.

The Australian family law system has generally not aimed to provide services to assist separated parents to discuss child support matters directly with each other. In this article we suggest that in an increasingly complex social landscape of diverse family forms and parenting arrangements, some families would benefit from facilitated joint discussions about workable financial solutions to questions of ongoing parenting obligations - solutions that may fall outside the administrative assessment guidelines that inform child support determinations. More specifically, the article seeks to address three questions: (a) How has child support been thought about within the broader family law system in Australia?; (b) Where can separating parents go to get help to talk with each other about child support?; and (c) What might a system look like that can simultaneously accommodate the discussion of parenting arrangements and child support?

Some of the results of an Australian Research Council Discovery research project 'Experiences of Parents and Children after Family Court Decisions on Relocation', and the decisions on the Council's recommendations in light of them are discussed. The other key themes that emerged from the interviews are highlighted.

In recent years, sweeping changes to the Australian family law system - new services, legal processes, legislation, and a new child support scheme - have been put into place, accompanied by a large research evaluation program. A central plank running through the recent reforms is the need for courts, and those who work with separating parents, to consider whether a child spending equal or else substantial and significant periods of time with each parent would be in his or her best interest and be reasonably practicable. While legal professionals, practitioners and policy analysts wait for the first wave of findings about how the new system is working, now seems like an opportune moment to pause and reflect on the past 5 years of Australian research into shared care. Do we know much more than we did 5 years ago when equal parenting time was first given formal policy prominence? The short answer is 'Yes' but the long answer is that our knowledge still remains at a basic level. (author abstract)

This article examines continuity and change in post-separation patterns of parenting across a three year time span. We analyse longitudinal data from two recent Australian studies: the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey; and the Caring for Children after Parental Separation (CFC) Project. Mother-residence was found to be the most common and the most stable pattern. Though far less common, father-residence also appeared to be reasonably stable. By contrast, shared care was found to be the most fluid of these three parenting configurations. (author abstract)

This study compared outcomes over 1 year for two groups of separated parents, who attended two different forms of brief therapeutic mediation for entrenched parenting disputes. The two interventions each targeted psychological resolution of parental conflict, enhanced parental reflective function, and associated reduction of distress for their children. The child-focused (CF) intervention actively supported parents to consider the needs of their children, but without any direct involvement of the children, while the child-inclusive (CI) intervention incorporated separate consultation by a specialist with the children in each family, and consideration of their concerns with parents in the mediation forum. Repeated measures at baseline, 3 months, and 1 year postintervention explored changes over time and across treatments in conflict management, subjective distress, and relationship quality for all family members. Enduring reduction in levels of conflict and improved management of disputes, as reported by parents and children, occurred for both treatment groups in the year after mediation. The CI intervention had several impacts not evident in the other treatment group, related to relationship improvements and psychological well-being. These effects were strongest for fathers and children. Agreements reached by the CI group were significantly more durable, and the parents in this group were half as likely to instigate new litigation over parenting matters in the year after mediation as were the CF parents. The article explores the potential of CI divorce mediation to not only safely include many children in family law matters related to them, but also to promote their developmental recovery from high-conflict separation, through enhanced emotional availability of their parents.

While there is good information on the broad patterns of parenting after separation in Australia, which parents opt for which patterns and why remains poorly understood. This article summarizes recent Australian research into five different post-separation patterns of father-child contact: (i) 50/50 shared care, (ii) little or no contact, (iii) holiday-only contact, (iv) daytime-only contact, and (v) `standard` contact. Two sources of data are used: qualitative data from a series of focus groups, and data from a large representative sample of separated/divorced parents in Australia. Joining the dots between both sets of data there is much to suggest that family dynamics in tandem with demographic factors temper the form that parent-child contact takes, with different combinations of factors clearly linked to qualitatively different patterns of post-separation parenting.

This article summarises Australian research into separated and divorced fathering. It attempts to take stock of what is known in order to identify research gaps for the development of a forward-looking research agenda. The main hope is that the piece will encourage more considered empirical attention to postseparation fathering.

Mental health issues permeate the family law system – at least according to anecdote. Yet such issues are rarely mentioned in family-law research, policy, and practice. This article aims to stimulate discussion about the sometimes close and complex links between mental health issues and family law, and suggests a framework for how the family-law system might provide better emotional support to families in transition.

Therapeutic divorce mediation is one of several interventions that hold promise for assisting highly conflicted parents to resolve disputes about their children. But how is it defined, what do we know about it, how is it constrained, and does it work? This article seeks to address these questions by reviewing the divorce mediation–therapy literature, and critically examining the recent Conjoint Mediation and Therapy (CoMeT) initiative, which is currently being trialled in Australia.

Child support (or 'child maintenance') is the payment that non-resident parents (mostly fathers) make towards the costs of raising their children after parental separation. In Australia, pursuant to s.66C(1) of the Family Law Act 1975, parents have a 'primary duty' to maintain their children. For the past two decades, the Australian Child Support Scheme has buttressed this moral and legislative mandate. Last year marked the 20th anniversary of the Australian Scheme's operation. Much has happened since the Scheme's humble beginnings in 1988/89. Society has changed markedly in many ways: the Australian population has grown, as has the number of separated parents; cohabitation is on the rise; the changing nature of family life and patterns of women's and men's workforce participation has meant that the parenting roles, expectations and responsibilities of mothers and fathers are in a state of flux; and modern family life is becoming more complex--as evidenced by increasingly diverse family forms and post-separation parenting arrangements. Coincidently, mid-2008 also marked the completion of a radical overhaul of the original Australian Scheme. In a bid to 'modernise' the Scheme, and flowing out of broader family law reform, sweeping changes, as recommended by the Ministerial Taskforce on Child Support, were implemented in three stages during 2006-08. The total reform package became fully operational on 1 July 2008 when a new formula for assessing child support liability came into effect. Child support touches the lives of many Australian families each year. Australia's child support scheme encompasses around 1.5 million separated parents and 1.1 million children. Those who have some connection with it are generally passionate about some aspect of it. So too are others not directly affected by it but who know a loved one, friend or work colleague in the throes of sorting out their lives following relationship breakdown. I too am passionate about child support. Poverty has an ugly face--especially for children. When my own parents separated in the late 1970s, money was tight. I remember going to the local courthouse with my mother to see if something could be done about child support. It was an exercise in futility. One memory in particular stays with me today. My dear late father left a suit behind when he moved out. I can still remember my youngest brother wearing that suit to his first job interview because he had nothing else to wear. At 16 years of age, he didn't quite fill the sleeves or the shape of that suit. Being hungry, having to put on shoes with holes, or wear a school uniform on a school 'casual dress' day, are experiences that some children continue to endure. While a well-operating child support scheme cannot solve the problems of the world, it can lessen the chances that children are thrust into poverty as a result of parents being unable to live under the same roof. More formally, as a social scientist, I have an intellectual fascination with child support because of its fantastically complex interactions with other areas of family policy, and the increasing complexity of the families upon which it impacts. The complexity of child support policy and its intersection with other areas of policy is a challenge for even the most expert in the area. The five research papers in this special issue of Journal of Family Studies certainly give the flavour of some of these challenges. To facilitate uptake of this special issue in library collections, and its possible use as an advanced course reader, it has also been released with an ISBN (978-1-921348-83-9). The first paper by Smyth and Henman (2010) examines the distributional and financial impacts of the introduction of the new Australian Scheme, and provides academic commentary on these predicted impacts. Drawing on data recently published by the Australian Government, the authors find that non-resident parents (mostly fathers) are more likely than resident parents (mostly mothers) to experience net gains under the new Scheme--but importantly a number of complex twists-and-turns are also evident for some groups. …

In Australia, there has been considerable interest in recent years in the policy and practical implications of sharing parental care and responsibilities after separation - concepts that have culminated in the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006. While there is now good information on the prevalence, demography and dynamics surrounding different patterns of parenting after separation, not a great deal is known about the extent to which patterns change for individual families over time. This article reviews international and Australian studies that shed light on the stability of post-separation parenting arrangements in relation to shared and sole care. The notion of 'stability' is shown to have several dimensions, not all of which are necessarily beneficial to children. The implications of placing a greater focus on how post-separation parenting arrangements evolve over time are discussed in the context of child focused dispute resolution and decision making. (author abstract)