Family law flaws will remain after the New South Wales Labor government slithered its way around a key Libertarian amendment.
Bringing attention to a loophole ripe for abuse in family disputes, the Libertarians attempted to remove parts of Section 28.
Section 28 2.2 is part of Labor NSW’s hastily written, and poorly debated, 2024 domestic violence revamp.
According to the law, the custodial parent has the right to make decisions about the child’s identity.
This means a sole parent – as ordered by the family courts – has total control over a child’s name and surname.
Highlighting the dangers, Libertarian legislative council member, John Ruddick, urged the government to ‘soberly think through the bill’s unintended consequences’.
‘I am concerned that schedule 2.2 could result in an increase in acute episodes of domestic violence and permanent family estrangement.’
‘When the Family Court decides that one parent will have sole custody of a child, some parents who have lost custody will not care, but many will be left absolutely shattered. Those grief-stricken parents will hold on to some hope that when the child turns 18, it may be possible to rekindle some form of a positive relationship.’
‘In most cases,’ he added, ‘a parent who has lost all custody will share a surname with the child.’
Labor’s fast and flawed DV law, will sever this ‘identity link, amplify grief’ and end all hope ‘they may have of reconciliation’.
Doubling down, Mr Ruddick warned that Section 28.2.2 encourages people who are motivated by spite and if left unchanged, the law could add to circumstances in which people ‘snap’.
‘Many fathers are distrustful of the Family Court and are convinced it has anti-father bias. If this amendment is not supported, that view will only be hardened and it will erode confidence in our institution.’
Calling Labor’s proposals arbitrary, he added, ‘My solution is to simply remove schedule 2.2.’
The current system for name changes works because it gives both parents a voice, while keeping the best interests of the child in mind.
Responding, Labor Treasurer Daniel Mookhey briefly defended the bill.
There are ‘appropriate safeguards’ in place, he claimed.
Mookhey then inadvertently affirmed Ruddick’s point.
‘The bill maintains appropriate safeguards to ensure sole parents cannot unilaterally change a child’s name without judicial oversight. The bill is appropriate because it gives effect to the intention of the Family Court orders by allowing sole parents who have been granted appropriate parenting orders to change their child’s name.’
The NSW Liberal National opposition didn’t write Mr Ruddick off in the same scripted manner.
They sympathised with Libertarian Party concerns about unintended consequences and said if these predictions proved true, the LNP would be prepared to revisit the changes.
Susan Carter, Attorney General Shadow Minister, said, ‘I make the observation that, sadly, we cannot legislate against spite. But we can, of course, legislate in a way that minimises opportunities, especially when thinking about spite being visited upon our children.’
Greens MP, Abigail Boyd, essentially said that this conversation isn’t solely about men because women can be victims too. Having looked closely at the bill, the Greens communicated agreement with the ‘general vibe’ of Mr Ruddick’s amendment.
Boyd then discounted the amendment, backing Labor’s ‘appropriate protections’ response by concluding:
‘[Section 28 2.2] is just removing the administrative step that requires consent by the other parent in circumstances where the Family Court had already made the determination that consent was not appropriate.’
Those responding appear do not appear to have addressed Mr Ruddick’s concerns directly.
They did not appear to take the concerns of fathers separated from their kids seriously.
Men, who (as Dads 4 Kids rightly argued, and based on the suicide rate in Australia) will – despite the Greens feminist protests – be the most likely to experience the vicious backhand of this this cruel, and soul-crushing law.
Rushed legislation is synonymous with flawed legislation.
If allowed to stand Labor’s loophole will legitimise LGBTQ+ lawfare, parental alienation, and therefore abuse.
Well done to the Libertarians NSW for trying to mitigate a bad law that will only inevitably, escalate conflict, hurt kids, and further wound good dads caught up in a bad situation.