Executive Summary

The Associate Minister of Justice, Hon Margaret Wilson, and the Minister of Social Services and Employment, Hon Steve Maharey, released a discussion paper Responsibilities for Children: Especially when parents part - The Laws about Guardianship, Custody and Access, in August 2000 for response by the end of November 2000. This discussion paper presents the Government's goals for family policy and raises a number of questions concerning what is desired from the law on guardianship, custody and access for children. Key issues raised for discussion in the paper included the rights of children, the rights and responsibilities of families and extended families, recognition of cultural diversity and the language used in the legislation. In addition, people were invited to express their views on Family Court procedures.

This paper presents key findings from an analysis of the 359 submissions that the Ministry of Justice received by post, fax and e-mail. Most submissions were received from individuals expressing a personal concern. Many included a description of their own experiences with the Family Court, its proceedings and outcomes. Some submissions were from individuals and organisations expressing views based on their experience of work or research in the area. A number of submissions included papers written as part of postgraduate study programmes. Several government departments responded. A number of community-based groups and "community of interest" organisations also forwarded submissions. 

Many submissions followed the format and numbering used in the discussion paper and responded directly to the questions asked. Some reflected back the issues as they had been presented in the discussion paper. Others made suggestions about specific aspects of the current law and court proceedings that they thought should be retained or the changes they thought were necessary.

The summary of submissions found some points of general agreement. It was generally agreed that the Guardianship Act should focus on ensuring the best interests of children and young people, including their welfare and safety. By implication, the language used in the Act and Family Court proceedings should help the family retain that focus. Many submissions supported prominence being given to the articles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) in the legislation. Submissions also dealt with the respective weights that should be given to the rights of children and young people, and the rights and the responsibilities of parents and wider family/whanau in both the legislation and court proceedings. There was some agreement that diverse family forms need to be recognised and disagreement about whether Maori aspirations and values require special attention under the law. Many submissions presented views on the importance and ability of both parents playing a significant role in the lives of their children and how the legislation should or should not be changed to achieve this.

Submissions also addressed the usefulness of various types of resources for parents, children and those working for the Family Court in resolving disputes and gaining consensus about arrangements for the care of children and young people. These included: guidelines for use by the Court to help resolve separation issues; parenting plans; educational resources for families, children and young people about the proceedings and roles of those associated with the Family Court (e.g. Counsel for the Child, specialists etc); and do-it-yourself kits for parents.

Generally more divergent views were held on procedures in, and expectations of, the Family Court. Contrasting views were presented on the appropriateness of current Family Court procedures, provision of counselling and mediation services and the respective roles of judges and legal, psychological, and counselling specialists. Some submissions presented alternative models, some particularly for Maori. Some discussed the need for the Court to deliver services appropriate to ethnic and cultural background. Views were polarised around the appropriateness of opening up court proceedings.

Some submissions made comments about, and suggestions for, speeding up and reducing the costs of court proceedings. Opinion was divided about the utility of do-it- yourself kits. There was more agreement that it would be useful for the Court to have a means of limiting repeat applications while remaining flexible enough to respond to the changing needs of children and young people.

Some submissions were concerned with the making and breaking of court orders. Some of these related to minimising trauma for children and others with ways of increasing the Court's enforcement powers. Fewer comments were made about New Zealand's reciprocal arrangements with overseas countries.

In addition a number of submissions made general or specific comments about the consultation process, the content of the discussion paper and/or the need for further research.