The powers of separation

A battle is being fought over the nation’s children — but, no, it doesn’t involve civilisations clashing, violent video games, or the marketing of deep-fried foodstuffs. This conflict begins in broken homes, but is now being played out in family courts and corridors of power across the land.

On one side are some men’s rights groups, who argue that family law makers have long paid scant regard to the interests of separated fathers. The debate is often passionate, as men relate heart-wrenching cases of losing access to their children, or being financially crippled while trying to meet family support payments. These groups lobby for changes to family law, saying the system needs to be more equitable for women and men when relationships break down. There have even been some concessions made, with recent reforms placing more of an emphasis on maintaining contact between fathers and their children in cases of divorce and family breakdown. But is the pendulum swinging too far in their direction?

Sociologist Dr Michael Flood, a visiting fellow at the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, argues that ultimately the issue is not whether or not separated fathers or mothers are coming out on top, but whether enough consideration is being given to the wellbeing and wishes of the child. Over the course of his work on the men’s rights movement, he has arrived at the alarming conclusion that more children and women are being placed at greater risk of harm as maintaining contact with all fathers becomes a priority for the law.

“Fathers’ rights groups are changing our perceptions of family law, but I’m more concerned about the ways they’re changing how family law is practised. Since some changes in 1995 and more recent changes in 2003, the Family Court is more likely now to place children in contact with their father where there have been allegations of violence by that father.

“The changes have exposed women and children to greater levels of violence in the course of separation, divorce, and child hand-overs. They’ve increased men’s expectations that they have an automatic right of contact with their children, and above all they’ve compromised the principle of the best interests of the child.

“Increasingly the issue of children’s wellbeing and children’s safety is being compromised in favour of an assumption that contact with both parents is good for children in all cases. It’s certainly good for children in general, but where there is violence or abuse, we know it is deeply damaging to children, whether they are witnessing that violence or being subjected to violence themselves.”

Flood’s findings are based on years of research on men and gender studies. His work ranges from broad social analysis and critique through to one-on-one interviews, in which he seeks to understand the complexity of the thoughts and emotions driving male behaviour. In gathering his data, Flood has engaged in debate with fathers’ rights advocates in the media and online, and critically assessed the claims made by these and other participants in struggles over family law and public policy.

He says the atmosphere at fathers’ rights rallies and forums can be emotionally charged, meaning dissenters are likely to encounter angry rebukes. Flood’s engagement with the arguments of advocates has lead to personal attacks and abuse, which he finds dismaying but unsurprising. He has often been called anti-male or anti-father (although he is a father himself), and insulted by supposedly negative terms like ‘gay’ or ‘female’.

“That’s sometimes very toxic and hostile, it’s sometimes very unpleasant debate, because you can get personally attacked. But it seems to me that’s really useful to understand where the men in those groups are coming from, and what the political agendas in those groups really are.”

But Flood says his encounters with the men who join fathers’ rights groups has allowed him to better understand the underlying motivations, and provided an insight into the directions public policy should take in dealing with separated fathers.

“[Men’s rights groups] come out of the pain, and distress, and anger that separated men feel. Certainly there is no doubt that large numbers of men and indeed women go through painful divorces and separations, go through painful battles over where children should live. Those separated parents need support. They should be responded to with resources and with compassion.

“But some fathers’ rights groups mobilise that anger that some separated men feel, and link it to a broader political agenda. My research suggests that agenda is not about helping separated fathers heal, and it’s not about helping separated fathers build ongoing and constructive relationships with their ex-partners and with their children. It’s more often about trying to gain and retain control over ex-partners and children.”

Remaining true to his mission as an academic in the trenches, Dr Flood says he draws on personal experience to maintain a human perspective on the experiences of separated fathers.

“Speaking as a new father myself, I have some sense of the power and incredible emotional intensity of being a parent. And of how absolutely gutted you would be to lose contact with your child. So policy and community responses to separated fathers should be trying to encourage their ongoing, positive involvement with children. Above all, we should be tackling the real obstacle to fathers’ involvement with children after separation, their lack of involvement before separation, and the workplace and policy obstacles which underpin this.”

Back to top