United Future
Judy Turner

Care of Children Bill - 1st reading speech

This Bill has proposed changes to out-dated and loaded terminology such as “custody” and “access”, and replaced them with new terms like “parenting orders” that should lend themselves to a more preferred equal parenting approach to the care of children. HOWEVER …. UNITED FUTURE believes that this Bill stops short of delivering to children more equitable parenting arrangements and instead just upholds the old provisions with less emotive language such as new use of the term “day to day care” (custody) and “contact” (access). 

The old winner/loser outcomes still exist but under a new guise.  There has not been enough effective change in this Bill that would mean both parents have an equitable chance to be involved in the raising of their children.

UNITED FUTURE would prefer a Bill that provides clear guidelines regarding the use of the family court and family lawyers with an emphasis on an assumed cooperation between the parents and an assumed equity between both parents. This approach differs slightly from Ms Newman’s “Shared Parenting” approach, which had a more enforced approach to equal parenting. We believe that forcing an unwilling parent to be involved in their child’s life is unlikely to be in the best interest of the child. However where both parents want to have significant contact with their children, and where both parents are safe caregivers, then UNITED FUTURE believes that it is in the child’s best interest that guardianship laws facilitate an arrangement that reflects the value to the child of having both parents playing a constant part in their life. Arrangements should be made that are appropriate to the age and needs of each child and for these arrangements to be flexible, changing as the needs of the child change.

The essence of this Bill is guardianship, and while we agree that an overhaul is needed to update legislation that is concerned with the care of children, we have grave misgivings about what has been proposed in this Bill. While the Minister believes that the family court will screen inappropriate applications for guardianship, UNITED FUTURE believes that there needs to be clear guidelines to facilitate this vital decision making process. As it stands- a step parent has to demonstrate greater long-term commitment to a relationship before they can legally get their hands on half the furniture than they do to gain guardianship over the children in the relationship. We believe there must be time frames included in this Bill to ensure a certain amount of time or commitment has been shown before a person is appointed a child’s guardian. If an additional guardian is to be appointed then it is surely in a child’s best interest that some sense of longevity and stability be established, at least as long as is required for property rights.

For UNITED FUTURE the issue surrounding the care of children is bigger than just the guardianship issue covered by this Bill.

A single piece of legislation never exists in isolation from the tapestry of law that under girds life in Aotearoa NZ. UNITED FUTURE believes that it is vital that a child’s identity is clearly protected. The bottom line is a matter of pure biology. Which is of course that that every child has a mother and a father. UNITED FUTURE has already demonstrated with the broad definition of family that has been included in the Families Commission that we accept the diversity of relationships that surround the care of children. However what we want to advocate is for every child to have access where possible, to both their mother and their father regardless of what care arrangements exist. With the onslaught of new birth technology and advances in medical research, heritage is at risk of being overlooked, neglected and even rejected. The arrangement made for the care of children should never override the long-term best interests of the child. This long-term best interest surely includes preserving the vital link to their parentage. Confusing the terms “mother” and “father” and in particular the feminine and masculine aspects of those basic family relationships is ill conceived.

Care arrangements that deliberately withhold information or neglect opportunities for safe contact with a natural, biological parent is not a child-focused decision.

This concern is not about judging peoples ability to be caring guardians, but it is a concern about obscuring a child’s chance to have contact with a mother or a father because it doesn’t suit the living arrangements of the adults in the family. This is not a child-focused approach.

The Bill differentiates between natural guardians (biological parents) and appointed guardians. That is fine. But then in an apparent contradiction it allows for a non-biological adult living with the mother during any stage of the pregnancy to be given guardianship rights that are equal to the biological mother.

United Future will not support this bill to first reading because our concern is not that additional guardians can and should be appointed BUT that in certain circumstances this can be done to the deliberate exclusion of biological parents.