Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Libertarians warn Labor DV loophole encourages war on dads.

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 is part of NSW Labor’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.”

Rather than end domestic violence, the law could “result in an increase of acute episodes of domestic violence and permanent family estrangement.”

Erasure

After losing custody of a child, “some parents won’t care, but many will be left absolutely shattered,” he explained.

“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, Ruddick warned that Section 28 2.2 encourages “people motivated by spite”, and if left unchanged, the law will “make people snap.”

“Many fathers are distrustful of the Family Court and are convinced it has an anti-father bias,” Ruddick continued.

“If this amendment is not supported, that view will only be hardened.”

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.

Bad Law

Responding, Labor Treasurer and left-wing ESG activist Daniel Mookhey briefly defended the bill, saying that it’s all appropriate.

There are “appropriate safeguards” in place, he claimed.

Mookhey then – inadvertently affirmed Ruddick’s point – by stating,

“The bill is appropriate because it allows sole parents who have been granted appropriate parenting orders to change their child’s name.”

The NSW Liberal National opposition didn’t write 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 “happy to revisit the proposed amendments.”

In the meantime, Shadow Attorney-General Susan Carter said, “We cannot legislate against spite,” and claimed the “bill has sufficient protections.”

Greens MP, pro-abortion socialist, and LGBTQ+ activist Abigail Boyd first took issue with Ruddick defending dads.

This isn’t solely about men, women can be victims too, she exclaimed, in sum.

Having looked closely at the bill, the Greens MP communicated an agreement with the “general vibe” of Ruddick’s amendment.

Boyd then discounted the amendment, backing Labor’s “appropriate protections” response by concluding that,

“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.”

Not one of those responding appears to have answered Ruddick’s concerns.

Neither did they appear to take the concerns of fathers separated from their kids seriously.

Men, who (as Dads4Kids 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 cruel and soul-crushing law.

Rushed legislation is synonymous with flawed legislation.

If allowed to stand, Labor’s loophole will legitimise lawfare, parental alienation, and, therefore, abuse.

Well done to the NSW Libertarians for trying to mitigate a bad law that will inevitably escalate conflict, hurt kids, and further wound good dads caught up in a bad situation.

WATCH/LISTEN:

NSW parliament just passed a law to allow one parent (via the Family Court) in a custody dispute to change the surname of the child without permission from the other parent.

I moved an amendment to protect the rights of the non-custodial parent. We didn’t win but I am… pic.twitter.com/wcHKgW1Fj3

— John Ruddick MLC (@JohnRuddick2) September 25, 2024

___

Republished with thanks to Caldron Pool.