Family Dispute Resolutions (FDR)

The legal system is fairly effective at achieving justice for the parties involved in the breakdown of a relationship. This is because there are different aspects of family law that are more compensated for then others, current legislations have been successful in achieving outcomes for party members however some consequences regarding children have been quite limited. Despite that the law is constantly working towards improvement in these areas. Non legal aids have significantly assisted in the encouragement of government bodies in addressing the concerns of societal members through legislation as well as personally providing support and assistance to those directly affected for instance: Mission Australia and The Fathers Lone Association.

These of which include Property, Money and Children. When a couple separates the distribution of these possessions as well as their time is able to be discussed through means of Family Dispute Resolutions. FDR is a system that has effectively provided an alternative avenue to solve disputes to redirect families from the court process. In 1995 the Family Law Reform Act encouraged separating parents to resolve their parenting issues privately as it was proved that the extended and negative conflict involved in Family Court had a seriously detrimental impact on the people involved, and most particularly on children. Since July 2007, a party is unable to start a case unless they have a certificate issued by a registered FDR practitioner (unless an exemption applies) establishing that the session was ineffective at producing an outcome. The most common method, Meditation involves the presence of a neutral third party (FDR practitioner) in assisting a couple in discussing the relative issues. Hence working towards a plan that can be agreed upon that provides justice for both parties.A Joint select committee report in 1992 recommended FDR, once introduced in 1995 through the Family Law Reform Act compliance rates improved significantly as well as decreased hostility and a greater focus on the ‘best interests’ of the

The first concern that was voiced was that mothers were given primary responsibility over fathers. In 2006 the Family Law (Shared Responsibility) Act was implemented to address these concerns through the ‘encouragement’ for parents to share their responsibilities as a parent. This statement provoked misunderstanding between shared care vs responsibility. It didn’t refer to the entitlement of 50/50 care rather the equal involvement in decisions affecting the child. This was not an appropriate overarching statement as all families have differing schedules and commitments that wouldn’t provide ‘equal’ meaningful time with the child. As well as it was legally enforced there for non-compliance was common. It also didn’t address the concerns for violence or the child’s rights and views regarding time spent with their parents.There was heavy pressure being put on the government from fathers' groups (Lone Fathers Association) which evoked a response to the concerns through the Family Law 2011 act which was implemented which ultimately provided greater weight to protecting children from abuse and allowing courts to have greater access to information regarding family violence within a case. Other Key changes also include the notion of “Substantial and significant time” with each parent. SPR in decision making and not time aswell more Family