Speaker 1: 0:00

What if I told you that children were actually safer in Australia's family court system before the quote progressive reforms of 2006? That legislation, designed to promote children's relationships with both parents, actually increased their exposure to the patterns of abuse that research now shows dramatically increase children's risk of PTSD, depression and anxiety. Welcome back to the Post-Separation Abuse Podcast. I'm your host, danielle Black, and today we're examining how well-intentioned policy created a 20-year disaster for the protection of children in Australia. In our last episode we exposed the professional competence crisis how family court professionals systematically fail to identify coercive control that research shows dramatically increases children's risk of PTSD, depression, anxiety, self-harm and more. We saw how the incompetence weaponises the entire family court system against protective parents and children. But this professional incompetence did not happen in a vacuum. It's the predictable result of policy changes that fundamentally misunderstood what protects children. Before we continue, let me be clear again this is not anti-father content, nor is it anti-non-primary caregiver. I'm happily married to a wonderful man who's also a wonderful father, and he completely supports evidence-based protection for kids post separation. This conversation is about protecting all children from harmful patterns, regardless of which parent displays them. Progress is not always positive. Sometimes progressive policy actually creates massive harm that takes decades to recognise. In this episode we'll explore what actually worked to protect children prior to 2006,. How the 2006 amendments created an ideological orthodoxy that prioritized access to kids over and above their safety. The evidence that was ignored when these changes were made. How policy designed to help children actually maximised their exposure to trauma. And the connection between 2006 policy failures and today's professional incompetence crisis. Let's start with what we lost.

Speaker 1: 2:16

Before 2006, australia's family law system operated under a framework that, while imperfect, actually provided far better protection for kids who were exposed to family violence. The default arrangements were often every other weekend with the non-primary caregiver. That was the norm back then, not the exception. Now I know what some of you might be thinking how can less time with a parent be better? But here's what the evidence shows us, especially when we apply the University of Queensland research showing that children exposed to coercive control have dramatically higher risks of PTSD, depression, anxiety and more. We know that children exposed to coercive control are at a significantly higher risk of PTSD, depression, anxiety, self-harm and even greater risk of substance abuse in later life. That risk compounds with more exposure time. So now let's think about the exposure levels With the every other weekend arrangement, approximately four days a month, more or less, were spent with the non-primary caregiver, 26 days per month with the stable primary caregiver, more or less.

Speaker 1: 3:28

This provided limited exposure to harmful patterns while maintaining connection, and I'm comfortable standing by this because most separating parents are separating from a heterosexual relationship. So a man and a woman in a relationship together Most often the woman, the mother, is the primary caregiver, with the non-primary parent being the father, and the vast majority of family violence and post-separation abuse is perpetrated by males. Now, this is not to say that there's never been a situation in which the primary caregiver has perpetrated abuse. That's not what I'm saying. However, I think it is fair and reasonable to look at what statistics and research tell us about who is usually the perpetrator of family violence, post-separation abuse, including coercive control. Now let's look at significant time arrangements and equal shared care arrangements that became a lot more prevalent after the 2006 changes. This could look like approximately 15 days or so every month with each parent. That's if there's an equal shared care arrangement. This is giving kids maximum exposure to any harmful patterns that might be going on and constant disruption to any stability or recovery. The maths tells the story. We went from minimizing children's exposure to harmful patterns to maximizing it in the name of progress.

Speaker 1: 5:02

So before 2006, the courts focused on what was best for the specific child without there being ideological pressure for equal time. Professionals assessed individual family circumstances without there being presumptive frameworks for parental decision making or maximum contact time with non-primary parents. Abuse allegations were investigated seriously without automatic accusations of alienation against protective parents. The system defaulted to arrangements that protected kids with increases in contact based on demonstrated safety and family. Report writers and other professionals could recommend protective arrangements without pressure to justify why a child shouldn't have significant or equal time. For children experiencing coercive control patterns, alternate weekend contact meant limited exposure to that harmful pattern of behavior.

Speaker 1: 5:57

Extended periods with the protective primary caregiver allowed for emotional recovery. Having a consistent, stable primary base provided security and predictability. Shorter visits made it easier to identify and respond to concerning behaviours, and children's resistance to contact was investigated far more than it was pathologised. What this meant for protective parents was that safety concerns were more likely to be taken seriously rather than being dismissed as alienation. As far as professional support goes, report writers were able to recommend protective arrangements without the same level of justification being required, and there was legal standing to raise safety concerns without being automatically labelled as difficult or gatekeeping withholding.

Speaker 1: 6:49

I know you've heard it all before. There was also a degree of financial protection. Protective parents weren't being dragged to the same extent into prolonged litigation because there wasn't the ideology around significant time or equal shared parenting time. So protective parents didn't have to fight as hard to achieve protective arrangements for their kids. And here's what's important to understand. Good fathers weren't harmed by this framework. Quality fathers were able to use weekend time to build genuine, positive relationships with their children. Children's emotional safety was prioritized, and good fathers didn't need maximum parenting time in order to be a good father or in order to create and maintain secure attachments with their children. As we've discussed in other episodes, research demonstrates that the quality of time that children have with a parent far outweighs the quantity of the time. The fathers who were most quote disadvantaged by this were perhaps those that were relying on time quantity rather than relationship quality, maybe because they lacked the skills for healthy connection, or because they were wanting to utilize contact with the kids to continue controlling former partners. Now to the ideological shift.

Speaker 1: 8:07

In 2006, the Howard Liberal Government introduced amendments to the Family Law Act that fundamentally changed how Australia approached post-separation parenting arrangements. The changes introduced were equal shared parental responsibility, a presumption that both parents should have equal responsibility for major decisions about children. An imperative around contact. So pressure for children to have quote meaningful relationships with both parents, which in practice became a pressure for maximum time with the non-primary parent. And the quote right to both parents. So a shift from what's best for this child to children have a right to both parents.

Speaker 1: 8:53

So how did such good intentions create so much harm? The legislators did have good intentions. They wanted to address concerns that some fathers were being unfairly excluded from their children's lives. They wanted to promote positive father-child relationships, and those are absolutely worthy goals. But good intentions don't protect children from harmful implementation.

Speaker 1: 9:15

Here's what actually happened when these amendments hit the real world Equal responsibility became interpreted as equal time, whilst the legislation specified a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. So this is the legal decision making. There was also a link to need to consider significant or equal time, and so many family court professionals interpreted this as a pressure for equal or substantial time arrangements. It also became interpreted by the average person in the community, particularly the average father post-separation, that they had a right to equal time. Maximum contact became the goal. Instead of asking what parenting arrangement serves this child's best interests, the question became how can we maximize contact with both parents?

Speaker 1: 10:07

Safety concerns then became obstacles. Protective parents raising legitimate safety concerns were increasingly viewed as creating obstacles to a child's quote right to both parents, and the professional pressure increased. Family report writers felt pressured to recommend quote balanced arrangements regardless of individual family circumstances. Then we have an explosion with the alienation industry. The 2006 amendments then coincided with the explosion of quote parental alienation concepts in Australian family courts. Suddenly, children's voices were dismissed. Children expressing reluctance about contact with a non-primary parent were labelled as being alienated from that parent rather than having their concerns investigated. Protective parents were pathologised. Mothers who raised safety concerns were increasingly labelled as quote alienating rather than what they really were. Protective Abuse was minimised. Coercive control and other harmful patterns of behaviour were reframed as quote conflict to avoid interfering with maximising children's contact with the non-primary parent, and evidence was ignored. Clear evidence of harmful parenting was dismissed if it might impact contact time with the non-primary parent.

Speaker 1: 11:30

The 2006 amendments didn't just change the law, they changed professional culture. Professionals became afraid to recommend limited contact even when evidence supported it. Family report writers felt pressured to recommend balanced outcomes regardless of family dynamics, pressured to recommend balanced outcomes regardless of family dynamics. Professional training focused on contact facilitation rather than the identification of abuse, and professional success stories were measured by achieving cooperative arrangements rather than the protection of children. So many unintended consequences.

Speaker 1: 12:04

What actually happened to kids in Australia under this new framework was an increased exposure to harm, children forced into substantial time arrangements despite the safety concerns, and a maximisation of trauma, maximum exposure to the coercive control patterns linked with higher PTSD risk. Their voices were suppressed, children's resistance to contact that was harmful was labelled as alienation. And there was an erosion of protections, a systematic dismantling of safeguards that previously protected vulnerable children. What makes this worse is that there was evidence that they ignored. There was child development research available in 2006. This evidence includes attachment theory, which shows the importance of primary caregiver stability for healthy development for kids. There was trauma research demonstrating the harm of continued exposure to abuse patterns. There was developmental psychology, which emphasizes security and predictability over the quantity of time with a parent. And there was research around high conflict dynamics, already showing problems with shared parenting arrangements in families where there was high levels of conflict post-separation. There were also international warning signs that were ignored Other jurisdictions around the world were already seeing problems.

Speaker 1: 13:25

In the US, there was research emerging related to problems with presumptive shared parenting. In the UK, concerns about one-size-fits-all approaches to contact after separation. In Canada, studies showing importance of individual assessment over ideological frameworks. Australian experts raised concerns before and after 2006. Child development specialists warned about prioritising time quantity over relationship quality. Domestic violence experts predicted that safety concerns would be minimised. Family violence researchers highlighted the risks of increased exposure to harmful patterns and advocates for kids warned that children's voices would be suppressed Even as the amendments were being implemented. The research was showing that quality mattered more than quantity when it comes to parenting. The children's well-being was related to the relationship quality, not the time quantity. The research was showing that we needed to take a safety-first approach, that children in high conflict dynamics post-separation did much better with limited time with the non-primary caregiver. The research showed that stability matters, that disruption to primary caregiver relationships harmed children far more than limited contact with the non-primary parent. And the research also told us that one-size-fits-all approaches failed to serve children's diverse needs. So that brings us to the 20-year legacy of harm.

Speaker 1: 14:58

For 20 years we've been conducting a mass experiment on Australian kids based on ideological assumptions rather than evidence. We've got a generation of children who were forced into maximum parenting time arrangements with maximum exposure to harmful patterns, patterns of behavior, coercive control specifically linked with much higher risks of PTSD, depression, anxiety, self-harm, substance abuse. The list goes on. A professional culture of contact over safety was also created, a system where contact maximization became more important than protecting kids. We created a legal framework that was really quite hostile to safety concerns, where raising legitimate concerns about kids' safety could get you labelled as being an alienator, and we created an ideological orthodoxy that was resistant to evidence, where challenging equal time assumptions or significant time could become career limiting for some professionals working in the space.

Speaker 1: 16:07

The 2006 amendments created a generation of family court professionals that were trained to prioritise contact with both parents over and above all else. There was a focus on achieving time arrangements that were significant for the non-primary parent rather than really understanding the family dynamics. There was a minimisation of safety concerns. Abuse allegations were treated as obstacles to overcome rather than there being a focus on protecting kids. Protection was pathologized, protective parents were viewed as problematic and the evidence was ignored. The research about individual children's needs needing to be favored over and above ideological frameworks was completely disregarded. This is why we have the professional incompetence crisis that I spoke about in part one. These professionals weren't trained to identify coercive control. They were trained to overcome the obstacles for maximum time with both parents.

Speaker 1: 17:07

The professional incompetence that we discussed last episode isn't accidental. It's a pretty predictable result of 20 years of training professionals to prioritize contact with the non-primary parent over safety. Report writers have been trained to find ways to recommend substantial time, not to identify the nuances of post-separation abuse. Lawyers have become focused on achieving quote balanced outcomes rather than protective ones, and judges are under pressure to make orders that can appear fair to both parents rather than being primarily safe for kids. When we see family report writers labelling coercive control as quote conflict, we're not seeing individual failures. We're seeing the systematic result of 20 years of policy that taught professionals to minimise abuse in the service of parenting time maximization. When we see legal aid lawyers pressuring protective parents to accept harmful arrangements, we're seeing the result of a system that treats safety concerns as obstacles rather than priorities. And when we see children forced into arrangements that maximize their exposure to trauma, we're seeing the predictable outcome of policy that prioritized adults over and above the protection of children. So how does all of this compare internationally? Other countries that maintained child-focused, individually assessed approaches had much better outcomes, such as Scandinavian countries and some Canadian provinces. These jurisdictions didn't see the systematic professional incompetence that we've created in Australia because they didn't train their professionals to ignore abuse in the service of significant time or equal time ideology.

Speaker 1: 18:51

What all of this tells us is that progress isn't always positive. Here's the uncomfortable truth that we all need to acknowledge. The 2006 amendments promoted as progressive reform actually made Australian children far less safe. We were told that the changes were promoting children's relationships with both parents, that they were supporting gender equality in parenting, that we were moving beyond outdated assumptions about primary caregivers, but what we actually did was maximize kids' exposure to really harmful patterns of abuse. What we actually did was create systematic resistance to identifying abuse. What we actually did was train professionals to prioritize adult emotions, adult needs, adult demands for equal or significant time over and above child safety.

Speaker 1: 19:40

For 20 years, australian children have been the subjects of this failed experiment, forced into arrangements that maximise exposure to patterns consistently linked with a risk to higher rates of PTSD and more. And if children resisted significant contact, protective primary carers were called alienators. There's been professional failures because, sadly, so many professionals working in the system ignore abuse patterns or just simply don't know what to look for. And so many Australian families, so many Australian protective parents and children abandoned by the system, left unprotected by a system focused on adult concepts of fairness rather than the safety, well-being and best interests of children. The uncomfortable reality is that so many children were actually better protected when every other weekend was the norm, particularly for those where there was ongoing family violence and ongoing patterns of post-separation abuse. Every other weekend meant that there was minimal time for kids to be with harmful parents, while still maintaining some kind of connection. There was primary caregiver stability, extended time with a protective parent for recovery and support. It can be easier to identify and respond to problematic behaviours when there's limited exposure to one parent, and kids' voices were more likely to be respected. Resistance to contact was more likely to be investigated rather than pathologised, and the professional focus was on protecting kids over and above maximising contact with both parents. This isn't nostalgia. It's evidence-based analysis showing that our quote progressive reforms regressed the protection of our kids.

Speaker 1: 21:27

20 years of evidence shows that the 2006 amendments failed Australian children. It created a systematic inability to identify abuse Australian children. It created a systematic inability to identify abuse and the system was weaponised. Family court has become a tool for continuing abuse and coercive control on protective parents, and we've also now got significant class discrimination, a two-tiered system based on financial resources. We need to acknowledge this failure in order to move forward with the evidence-based reforms.

Speaker 1: 21:58

The Family Law Act has undergone some significant changes in the past couple of years. The presumption for equal shared decision-making and its link to equal shared parenting time. All of that's been removed from the Family Law Act but honestly, you wouldn't know it. There's still just as many non-primary parents dragging the primary caregiver into the court system for what they think they have a right to significant or equal time. There are still an abundance of report writers who have no fucking idea how to identify family violence, post-separation abuse, let alone the nuances of coercive control. There are so many families who, by the time they get to a final trial if they actually last that long in the system feel like they're battling against the inevitable, because there's already been really problematic precedence in place with parenting time on the basis of impact reports that occur really early on in the court journey.

Speaker 1: 22:59

We've changed the law, but 20 years of harm, 20 years of ideology is going to take time to change, and before it will change, it must be acknowledged, it must be called out. The professional incompetence that I spoke about in the previous episode really is not a mystery. It's a predictable result of 20 years of policy that trained professionals to ignore abuse patterns in order to maximise contact with both parents. When family report writers can't identify coercive control and when they label abuse as conflict, when they recommend parenting arrangements that harm kids, they're doing exactly what 20 years of policy ideology trained them to do. We can't fix the professional competence crisis without addressing the policy framework that created it, and even though we've changed the Family Law Act, real reform requires acknowledgement that the 2006 approach failed children. We need professionals working in the family law space to acknowledge that what we need is evidence-based policy, policy that prioritizes outcomes for kids over adult ideology. We need professional retraining that focuses on protection rather than the maximization of contact with both parents, and we need accountability in the system, accountability that measures success by the well-being of kids.

Speaker 1: 24:26

I don't want to wait decades for systematic reform, because I know only too well that there are children who need protection right now. In the next episode, we'll explore what evidence-based child protection actually looks like and what real reform could look like if we prioritise children's wellbeing over and above adult assumptions about fairness. But, more importantly, I'll be sharing how parents can navigate this broken system today using evidence-based strategies. We can't wait for systematic reform to protect the kids who need help right now. That's why I've spent years developing comprehensive strategies to help protective parents navigate this broken system, while advocating for the changes that our kids deserve. And speaking of comprehensive strategies, I'm putting the finishing touches on something that brings together everything we've discussed in these episodes a complete system for protecting kids using evidence-based approaches, even within our broken framework. I'll tell you more about that in the next episode.

Speaker 1: 25:32

If today's episode has highlighted gaps in your understanding of how this broken system operates, I've got some resources that you might like to check out. The Post-Separation Abuse Checklist and Workbook helps you to identify and document patterns that 20 years of policy taught professionals to ignore. There's also a mini guide on the five most common mistakes that I see parents make in early separation, helping you to avoid the traps created by this dysfunctional system and the capacity challenge. This introduces my three-step protective parenting framework for maintaining child-focused decision-making even when the system pressures you towards harmful arrangements. To be a protective parent, to move from conflict avoidant to protective, we need to grow our capacity. Those resources are free and can be found on my website, danielleblackcoachingcomau.

Speaker 1: 26:24

For 20 years we've prioritised adult ideology over child protection. We've called it progressive, but I hope you've been able to hear in today's episode that this progress has actually been very regressive for the safety of our kids, and the evidence is clear. Children were better protected before we decided that contact maximization was more important than trauma minimization. It's time to acknowledge this failure and demand evidence-based reform that actually protects our kids. Until next time, keep questioning the assumptions that have failed our children for two decades.

Speaker 1: 27:00

Thank you so much for being here. Oftentimes I feel like a lone voice in the wilderness. I feel like I'm shouting into the wind and I need help with this work. That's where you come in you educating yourself, you having conversations with other people, you moving from conflict avoidant to protective. You holding the professionals that you're engaged with in the family law space to a higher standard. All of that helps. All of that is going to help us to move in the direction that we need to go in, so that we just don't have to work so hard in order to protect our kids post-separation and I really thank you for being part of this journey with me. Thank you so much for your time. I look forward to chatting with you soon.