SUBMISSION

To the Public Consultation Paper on

Amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 to respond to family violence

1.Family Law matters to be resolved by State and Territory courts as appropriate

a)ItissubmittedthattheamendmentstotheFamily LawAct1975 (“theAct”) shouldexpressly define themeaningof “appropriatecases”and that themeaningshouldincludeanymatterwhere thereisevidencerelevanttochildprotectionincludingdomesticand familyviolenceandriskstothe welfareof children.

b)It issubmittedthatwhere mattersare initiated inastateorterritorycourtandmoveontothefamilylawjurisdiction,theAct shouldinclude aprovisionthatpursuant tosection118of theFederal Constitution, anorderfortheprevious‘custody’or‘access’madeinthefamilylawjurisdictionmust notbe madewhereit willbeinconflictwithachildprotectionordomesticandfamilyviolenceorder alreadymadebytheStateorTerritoryCourt.Section188statesthat:

Allfaithandcreditshallbe given, throughout theCommonwealthtothelaw,the publicActs andrecords,andthejudicialproceedingsofeveryState.(writer'sownemphasis)

2.Assisting the courts to exercise family law jurisdiction

a)TheNationalDomesticand FamilyViolence BenchBook-itissubmittedthatwhilethis isa meritoriousattempttoraise judges’ awarenessofevidence in domestic andfamilyviolence, it isimportanttonotethattheHigh Courthasmadeclearhowevidencefrom thesocialsciencesshouldimpactthe law.Forinstance, inAytugrulvQueen,1[1]themajoritystated:

…absenttheproofofsuchfactsandopinions(withtheprovisionofasufficientopportunityfortheoppositepartytoattempttocontrovert,bothbyevidenceandargument,thepropositionsbeingadvanced)acourtcannotadoptsuchageneralrulebasedonlyonthecourt'sownresearchessuggestingtheexistence of abodyof skilled opinion that would support it.

Furthermore,inhis HonourJusticeHeydon’sdecision,his Honourwrote:

Anotherpossibilityistotreattheexpertmaterialasamatterof"commonknowledge".The courts have relied on legislative facts as being withinmattersof"commonknowledge"inasensemuchwiderthanthatusedins144.Thatis,theyhaveresortedtolegislativefactseventhoughtheycouldnotbesaidtobe"notreasonablyopentoquestion"becausemindsdifferaboutthem.However,theleveloftechnicalsophisticationinvolvedinthematerialonwhichtheappellantreliedissogreatthatitwouldnotbesatisfactoryforthisCourttotakeitintoaccountwithouttheassistanceofexpertwitnesseswhohadbeencross-examined.ItwouldbeverydifficultforthisCourt,withoutthataid,toresolveanycontroversieswhichmayarise.VoborrowthewordsofJudgeFrankspeakingaboutpsychiatry,itwouldbedangerousfortheCourt"toembark–withoutapilot,rudder,compassorradar–onanamateur'svoyageon[this]fog-enshroudedsea.Theappellantsubmittedthattherespondenthadnotmade"anysignificantchallengetotheresearch"reliedon.Evenifthisisso–andtherespondentdisagreed–iftheexpertmaterialweretobetakenintoaccount,itwashighlypreferablethatitbepresentedthroughexpertwitnesses,preferablyduringapre-trialhearingtodetermineadmissibility.Theadmissibilityandweightoftheexpertmaterialcouldthenbe considered publiclyand critically.

b)Thewisdom ofhavingexpertmaterialfromthe social sciencespubliclyand criticallyconsideredduring courtproceedingsratherthanjudicialtraining ‘extra curiam’ isrevealedduetothe probabilitythat extracuriam judicialtraininghasledtothecurrentculture ofdenialofchildsexual abusethat existsinthe familylawsystem.Forexample,theNationalDomesticandFamilyViolenceBenchBook,under ‘Purpose andlimitations’andthe‘Key literature’tab,containsanarticletitled‘SocialScienceandFamily Law –Fromfallaciesandfadsto thefacts ofthematter’andstatesthat:

A second examplerelates to Gardner’s(2004)concept of parentalalienationsyndrome (PAS), in which a child repeatedlydenigratesand belittles oneparent, without justification.Emery, Otto, and O’Donohue(2005),amongothers,questioned the scientificstudies of this concept and concluded“that itis blatantlymisleadingtocallparentalalienation ascientificallybased

‘syndrome’” (p. 10), especiallygivenGardner’s admission that he regarded hissinglestudyas the onlyonethat had been statisticallybased. While others maydisagree,given thestateof the“evidence”,Iwould erron the side of caution

in theuseof such aconstruct and would not usethe term“syndrome” whendiscussingalienation. Clearly, adefinitiveconclusion on the topic awaitsmuch furtherresearch(Warshak,2001).(writer’s own emphasis)

c)Thefactisthat to thepresentdate even‘alienation’or ‘parentalalienation’ (PA)isstillahighlycontestedanddisputedtermamongresearchersandthepublishedliterature.Forexample,Meierreportsthat:

[this]articleconcludes that PAis too closelytiedto PAS to be anadequateimprovement.It, too, is used crudelyin court to defeat abuse allegations, itcontinues to relyon speculations about mothers’purported unconsciousdesiresand theireffectsonchildren,and, moresubtlythan PAS,minimisesabuse and its effects onmothersandchildren. Atroot, although even PAresearchershavefoundit to be areal issue in onlyasmall minorityofcontested custodycases,courts’ and evaluators’extensive focus on it inresponse to mothers’ abuse allegationscontinuestoprivilegefalse orexaggeratedalienationconcerns over avalid concerns aboutabuse.[2]

Itissubmittedthe Australianfamilylawsystemcontinuestouse thetermalienationasanundisputedfactmost commonly in caseswherethereareallegationsandevidenceofchildsexualabuseincludingthe child'sdisclosuresandeven caseswherethereismedicalevidence corroboratingacasefor afindingofriskofsexual abuse.

d)TheveryfactthatPAShasevenenteredintothemindsetandcultureofthefamilylawjurisdiction remainsacase inpointastothemistakesthathavebeenmadewhen“educatingandtraining”thejudiciary extracuriam.On18 February2007,BackgroundBriefingpresented aprogramon thetopicof ‘ParentalAlienation’. Inthatprogram,thefollowingexchangetookplace:

JaneShields:Freda [Briggs]says she's contactedregularlybymothers,aswellasfathers,whosaythey'velost custodyof their childrenafterraisingallegations of sexual abuseagainst the childrenduringcustodycases.

'ParentalAlienation Syndrome'arrived in Australiain 1989, in the form ofanarticlepublished inTheAustralian Family Lawyer.Thearticle,'Brainwashingin CustodyCases: parentalalienationsyndrome',waswrittenbyan American,DrKennethByrne, whohadcomewith his familyto live in Australia andestablish the AustralianInstitute ofForensicPsychology, of which heremainsthe Director.DrByrnenolongergivesmedicaltestimony, but works as aconsultantforensic psychologist in Melbourne.

BackgroundBriefingtelephoned him to ask if hestill supports Gardner's work.

KenByrne:Yes,Ido.Isupport the notion thatparentalalienation syndromedoes exist.

JaneShields:As asyndrome?Because it has been discredited,it's not in thediagnostic manual and it's beendiscreditedbylegal and psychological andpsychiatricand medical associations in America.

KenByrne:Well,Idon'tknow whatdiscreditedmeans. The factthatit's notin the diagnosticandstatisticalmanualdoesn'ttrouble me.There aremanythings that were not in that manual and later were in the manual.Gardner hasspecificallywrittenaboutthat issue ofit not beingin theDSM-IV.

JaneShields:A legalreview,published in the American Children's Rightsjournal, found that PAS did not meet the commonstandards ofscientificacceptance.ButDrKenByrnesays he's frustrated with argumentsoverwhetherPAS is technicallya syndrome. Hesays these debates ignoreitsusefulness in determiningcustodycases.

JaneShields: In 1990,ayear orsoafter hisarticleon PAS was published, DrByrnewas asked to present his viewsto the Annual Conference ofAustralianFamily Courtjudges, at the invitation ofthe thenChiefJustice, AlastairNicholson.(writer’s own emphasis)

On thephone from his hotel room, he explains whytheFamilyCourt judgesaskedDrByrne to speak.

AlastairNicholson: At that time we took theview that weshouldgetpresentationsfromdifferent experts in the field, he beingoneof them. AndItherefore approved of hisgivingthe presentation.Thefactthat wepermitted itto happendoesn'tmean itwasanendorsement ofit.Ithink that judges needtobe awareof different views andtrendsthat areoperative in theseareas, andthat was just one of them. AsIsay, it had some vogueat thetime andIthought it wasworthconsidering.

JaneShields:AlistairNicholson.

Thetalk DrByrnegavewas oneof manyhe gaveto judges,lawyersandpsychologistsandpsychiatrists duringthe'90s. And the ideasshowed up in a1997 appeal to theFamilyCourt, whena husbandraised the suggestion thathis formerwife had PAS. Hereis areading from the judgmentatthattime.

Reader:In acasewhere there have been obviouscontactdifficulties betweenthe parties, the possibilitythat thechildhaseitherbeenbrainwashed,orindoctrinatedbyoneof the parents, must be a relevantconsideration.DrByrne'sarticle leaveus in no doubt that'ParentalAlienationSyndrome'isaveryrealpsychological phenomenon whichthe husband, in our opinion, wasentitled to investigate and put to the relevant experts called in thecourseofthetrial.

JaneShields:Thatwas in 1997, andsince then therehas been increasingevidence that the ideas are bogusandunhelpful tothe Court. Former ChiefJusticeAlastair Nicholson says it's now proven to be psycho-babble. He cites aFamilyCourtcase offiveyearsago that effectivelydismissed PAS as havingno substance.However,he doesacknowledge thereis some lingeringinfluence.

AlastairNicholson:Ithink oneof thethings that happenisthat it is dredgedup from timeto time.[3]

e)Itissubmittedthat theproperand legallyprincipledwayforthetheoretical andempiricalpublished literature to impactjudicialreasoningisfor ittobeconsideredpubliclyandcriticallyinthe courtroom.Bywayof example, itis submittedtheeffectsofPASandPAcontinuestohavesignificantdeleteriousoutcomesforchildrenin thefamily lawsystem.Thenotionthatacourtis ‘specialised’4imbedsa perceptionthatjudgesneedadditionalspecialisationintheirroleasdecision-makers.However,judgesare supposedto bespecialisedin law, andtheprinciplesof evidence lawdeterminetheadmissibilityorotherwiseofhearsayevidenceincludingthe opinionsbyspecialisedexperts.Itisforthatreasonalsothatsection659ZT shouldberemovedfromtheAct,andtheprinciplesarticulatedintheEvidenceAct1995(Cth)shouldbealsoenactedintherelevant State andTerritoryevidenceacts,given theproposalthat StateandTerritorycourts maynowhearfamilylawmatters.

f)Extra curiamjudicialtraining hasnotbeenshowntobethepanaceaitwasandisthoughttobeinaddressingthedeeply disturbingcases ofchildsexual abuse andfamilyanddomesticviolence.Furthermore, itisagatewayfordangerousandunscientificideastomakeitintothemindsofimportantdecision-makerswithregardtohighlyvulnerable children.Another caseinpointisthedecisioninMurphyandMurphy whereajudgereferencedpaper givenatanAnnualConferenceofFamilyLawJudges,anddespitethepapernotreferencingasinglepieceof literatureon thetopicofchildsexualabuseandseeingthattheexpert’s CVrevealsDrVargheseisspecialisedin euthanasia-notchildsexual abuse,itisveryconcerningthat asection ofthepaper hasbeenrepeated inafamilyjudge’sReasonsforJudgment.IntheReasons,hisHonourwrote:

InanunpublishedUniversityofQueenslandpaperentitled“PsychiatryintheFamilycourt-Mad,Bad,SadorFad?”,DrFrankVarghese*identifiessomeofthecharacteristicssuggestingfalseallegationsas:

-Indicationsofenvyonthepartofthemotherabouttheclosenessofthechild’srelationship with the father.

-Retrospectiveaccountsofthemeaningofcertaineventsandobservationswhichatthetimemeantlittlebutisnowofgreatsignificance.

-Theinterpretationofnormalchildbehaviourasabnormalandindicatingsexual abuseand nothing else.

-Inabilitytorecognisethatone’sownbehaviourhascontributedtotheabnormalbehaviour.

-Attributingto the child’sstatementsthatareage appropriate.

-Escalation in the natureof theallegationsover time.

-Refusaltobereassuredbyopinionsofpeoplewhohaveinvestigatedtheallegations,indicatingastringneedtobelievethatthesexualabusehasoccurred.

-A curiouslackofemotion about what theysayhas happened to the child.

-Relianceonphotographsorvideosoftentakenbytheaccuserwhichwereofnosignificanceat thetimebutsubsequentlytakes ongreatimportance.[4]

-Reliance on non-specificdrawingor writings of the child.

-Relianceofsmellsofthefatherorfindinghairofthefatheronthechild’sclothingas indicativeof sexualabuse.

-Insistingthat sexual abusehasoccurredeven duringsupervised contact.

-Theinvolvementofatherapistwhoreinforcesthebeliefsystem.

-Escalationoftheaccusationscansometimesbetracedtothebeginningof“therapy”.

-Focusonthefather’ssexualbehaviourstowardsthemotherduringtherelationship as indicativeof atendencyto sexual abuse.

-Focusonaverbalstatementwhichissometimesaninappropriatecommentbythefather about the child.

-Awillingnesstoacceptthatchildsexualabusehasnotoccurredbutinsistingthatitwilloccuronthebasisthatthechildisbeing“groomed”forsexual abuseas indicated byvariousbehaviours.

-An“apophanous”experiencewherevariousstrandsbothpastandpresent suddenlycometogether to indicate sexual abuse.

-Ahistoryindicatingchronicunderlyinglowself-esteemandfearthatthechild would prefer thefatheror thefather’s newpartner.

*Footnote- DrVarghesegave expert psychiatricevidence in thetrial.-Paperdelivered September 2004.[5]

g)Finally,itissubmittedthat infact anytraininginrelationto childprotection mattersincludingaproperunderstandingoftheevidenceof child sexualabuse,child abuseandthe familyanddomesticviolenceshouldbedirectedtothe legalpractitionersandin particular barristers. Itistheirjob to become‘experts’sotospeakinaparticularfieldofpracticesuchaschild protection, anditistheir jobto developthelawin theseareasthrough cross-examinationandsubmissions.Thishasnotoccurredin thefamilylawjurisdiction,andhasledtothe jurisdictionthatistaintedbymythsabout sexualabuseanddomesticviolence.

3.Strengthening thepowers of thecourtis toprotectvictimsof familyviolence

a)Itissubmittedthat currently,theFamilyCourtisnotabletoeffectively identifyandthenprotect victimsoffamilyviolence.Again,thisisrelatedtotheproblem referredto above inthatthere isapersistentnotionormythoffamilyanddomesticviolenceisprimarilyanoffencethat leavesphysicalevidence.Toproperlydevelopthelawboth at aFederal, StateandTerritorylevel, it issubmittedthatpractitionersneedtoreceiveappropriatebasictrainingtoproperly begintounderstandandevaluatecasesof genuineviolence.

b)Itissubmittedthat allpractitioners who appearbeforeanycourtinrelation tomattersthataffectthe welfareofchildren,suchas childabuse, child sexualabuseandfamilyanddomesticviolence,theyall shouldbe requiredtoattendpreliminarybasictrainingandcontinuingprofessionaldevelopmentaspartoftherequirementsof continuingregistration topractice inthese jurisdictions.Greatinjusticescan occurwhen victimsbothfemaleand malearenotproperlyidentified andgiventheproposedamendmentstocriminalisebreachesofpersonalprotectioninjunctions,itisimportanttoproperlyidentifygenuinecasesversusspuriousallegations.

c)Itissubmittedthatthereisadanger inincreasingthepowerofthe courtto dismissunmeritoriousclaims,given thefamilylaw jurisdiction’strack record thatincludesthedeathofatleast 26children andforprotective mothersinthe circumstanceswhereorderswere madebyconsent or otherwise.Itisalso submittedthatitiscriticalthatthe lawisproperlydevelopedinState and Territorycourtsand theFederaljurisdiction ifthere beanyhopetoproperlyaddresstheproblemsseenthusfar.

4.Section121

a)Itissubmittedthatcontemporarysocietyhasmovedpastthesocialnormwherechildsexualabuseanddomesticviolenceareconsideredstigmatisingfactorsfortheirvictims.Forthatreason,itissubmittedthatissection121beamendedsothattheidentificationofvictimsremains a choiceforstakeholders.Childrenthat discloseand victims thatspeakoutshouldbe applaudedandhailed asheroes andthe secrecysurroundingchild sexualabuse hasnothelpeditsvictims.Thesecrecyof anyinstitutioncan onlyleadto serioushumancostsforthemost vulnerable.TheRoyalCommissionintotheInstitutionalisedResponses to ChildSexualAbusehasshownhow secrecy, in the nameof “victimprotection”has actuallyinsteadprotectedtheperpetrators.Section121thereforeshouldbeamendedtoremovethestrictprovisionregardingidentificationofparties.

PatriciaMerkin,19January2017

1

[1]AytugrulvtheQueen[2012]HCA15,atparagraph22.

[2]MeierJS,‘AHistoricalPerspectiveonParentalAlienationSyndromeandParentalAlienation’(2009)JournalofChildCustody,vol6,3-4,pp232-257.

[3]

[4]4Forexample,seeFamilyCourtofAustralia,Annualreport,2012,2013;“AsAustralia’s specialistsuperiorfamilycourt,determinecaseswithcomplexlawandfacts,andprovidenationalcoverageastheappellatecourtinfamilylawmatters.”atpage10,(writer’sownemphasis).

[5]5MurphyMurphy[2007]FamCA795,atparagraph154.