Letter: Australia leads in helping children and 'absent parents'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Today's leading article 'Australian rules worth following' makes a good point. But Australia has not only addressed the problem of financial child support, it has also addressed the thorny problem of a child's contact with the so-called 'absent parent'.
Among the sanctions an Australian court can impose on a custodial parent who refuses to obey a court order allowing a child contact with his or her absent parent are compensatory access; community service; weekend detention; and recognisance, ie the requirement that the custodial parent give proper surety to the court that he or she will fulfil his or her obligations. This can include a requirement to attend counselling.
Our law is in drastic need of reform. It does not meet the needs of the custodial parent, the absent parent and, most of all, it fails children entirely. The rigid formula of the Child Support Agency is designed to maximise the Treasury's take from absent parents and also, as far as possible, to prevent so- called single parents from claiming benefits.
If the law is to recognise that both parents have a responsibility to their children, it should also recognise that if the custodial parent is unable to pay his or her share, that burden should not be shifted to the other parent in a system supposedly designed to promote a clean break.
Sue Slipman ('Nobody hears the single parent's voice', 18 May) is right insofar as she says absent parents have a duty to support their children. But the term 'single parent' should be reserved for those families where one or other parent has died; children should have two parents, even if they are not living together. Unfortunately, for something of the order of 1 million children, that is not the case.
Yours faithfully,
MARIC GLASER
New Malden, Surrey
18 May
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments