maelorin: (hurt)
Add MemoryShare This Entry

By Stephanie Peatling
January 9, 2006


MARRIED couples thinking of divorce or separation will be encouraged to sit through a series of lectures - including advice on child rearing and seeking help from family members - according to new details of the Federal Government's family relationship centres.


The 65 centres across the country will enforce rules that compel couples to attend three-hour counselling sessions before seeking to end their relationship in the Family Court system.


The revelation - in pre-tender documents for the centres obtained by the Herald - follows backbench concerns that the centres should focus on keeping families together rather than smooth the way towards separation.


It also comes as the Prime Minister, John Howard, began the year by encouraging people to attend pre-marriage counselling.


The overhauled Family Law Act says couples must attend a free, three-hour counselling session at one of the 65 centres before going to court. The courses that will supplement those sessions will include:



  • Relationship counselling;

  • Dealing with other government agencies such as Centrelink or the Child Support Agency;

  • Help for other family members; and support for others involved such as teachers and medical practitioners; and

  • Classes on child rearing.


The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that about 32 per cent of marriages end in divorce. In an attempt to lower that figure, staff at the centres will be specifically instructed "not to assume that clients with relationship difficulties or going through separation will inevitably separate", departmental papers outlining the direction of the centres say.


"If centres believe parents considering separation can resolve their difficulties and stay together, they should refer the parents to services that will help them to do so."


An information paper on the centres was prepared by the Attorney-General's Department last year but was quietly rewritten and released the week before Christmas, just before tenders for the first 15 centres closed.


Frank Quinlan, executive director of Catholic Welfare Australia, said community and church organisations were aware of the growing role of the Family Relationship Centres.


"It is not necessarily a bad thing provided we can be sure people are not exposed to services that are less than professional," Mr Quinlan said.


Family Services Australia, a group representing 87 community organisations, has been lobbying the Federal Government to ensure staff at the new centres have the necessary professional qualifications for dealing with people who have experienced domestic violence.


Although many community and church-based organisations have applied for the $400 million the Government has allocated to the new centres, they are concerned they may be edged out by private, profit-based organisations.


The centres will be run along the same lines as the Job Network system, which is operated by a mixture of corporate and community- or church-based organisations.


Those running the centres will be able to outsource some of the services they are required to provide, and funding will be based on the number of people who use the centres, which services they use and the longevity of parenting agreements following separation.


HELP AT HAND


The first 15 family relationship centres will be at:

NSW Penrith, Lismore, Sutherland, Wollongong
VIC Mildura, Sunshine, Frankston, Ringwood
QLD Strathpine, Townsville
WA Joondalup
SA Salisbury
TAS Hobart
NT Darwin
ACT Canberra


In 2007 and 2008 centres will be established in: Sydney city, North Ryde, Parramatta, Bankstown, Campbelltown, Blacktown, Brookvale, Fairfield, Nowra, Newcastle, Wagga Wagga, Bathurst, Dubbo, Tamworth, Coffs Harbour, Gosford and Taree.



http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/revealed-battle-plan-to-save-marriage/2006/01/08/1136655089453.html

Mood:: 'exhausted' exhausted
There are 12 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
 
posted by [identity profile] dhill.livejournal.com at 03:21pm on 11/01/2006
WTF?
maelorin: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 01:53am on 12/01/2006
if they could ban divorce they probably would ...

when this was first reported, it we were told that it will be compulsory for intending divorcees to attend three hours of counseling before they could be granted a divorce if the couple have children.no such requirement if no child is involved.

no such requirement for those getting married.

you can get married in a few months, divorce takes at least a year, a month, and a day.

this is either a horse and cart confusion, or the real agenda is financial - reducing the social welfare "handouts" ...
 
posted by [identity profile] literalgirl.livejournal.com at 06:54pm on 11/01/2006
This reminded me of my own post a while back. Maybe they haven't read this study! ;-)

"Children endorse parents' divorce"

http://www.livejournal.com/users/literalgirl/260737.html
maelorin: (Default)

:)

posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 02:04am on 12/01/2006
no, i don't think they took that study into consideration.

or many others.

this 'measure' hears back to policy statements made in previous incarnations of this government. which was why i posted the speech from 2003.
 
posted by [identity profile] satyrix.livejournal.com at 08:25pm on 11/01/2006
Oh, that's so very fucked up.
maelorin: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 02:15am on 12/01/2006
isn't it just.

such a wonderful country that other half of the nation voted for ... *sigh*
 
posted by [identity profile] freyaw.livejournal.com at 10:53pm on 11/01/2006
I just like the way the first 'Relationship Centre' in South Australia will be in Salisbury.
maelorin: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 02:12am on 12/01/2006
the first 'new' one.

it is a logical place. in the heartland of single mother country.

which is what this is really about.

a few hours of counseling isn't going to resolve deep seated emotional issues. but it will provide another hurdle/barrier to overcome in the race to be free of the asshole ...
 
posted by (anonymous) at 04:28am on 12/01/2006
(1) Knowing that if our marriage doesn't work out, then we might be required to bare our personal and intimate secrets to some government appointed busy-body is another good reason for us not to bother about marriage in the first place, and just to keep living together. (Where the "our", "we" and "us" are purely rhetorical in my case.)
(2) If there is to be any counselling (and given the intrusive and usually unwelcome nature of such counselling, that's a big *if*), then it should take place before the marriage, not after the problems in the marriage have got beyond the abilities of the marriage partners and/or a third party to solve them. Some churches insist on pre-marriage counselling before they will agree to marry a couple (which often turns the intending couple off and convinces them to have a secular wedding instead).
(3) Is this one of the sops to the religious right that we have been expecting since the government got its tenuous control of the Senate? Senator Joyce doesn't seem to behave always as the government expects him to do, so perhaps Senator Fielding has become just that much more important to the maintenance of the government's absolute power over Parliament. Is this one of those quid pro quos that everyone denies was given in return for a pro-government vote on VSU?
*grrrr* mary
maelorin: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 04:41am on 12/01/2006
i think you'll find this is what i'm hinting at :)
 
posted by [identity profile] verdigriis.livejournal.com at 03:19pm on 12/01/2006
Heh. This reminds me of some religion based marriage counsellors...

Counsellor: "Have you considered staying together for the children?"

Woman: "Well, do you think I should? I mean he hits me, spends all our money on drugs, and is sexually assaulting one of our children..."

Counsellor: "If you loved him more he would reform."
maelorin: (Default)

O_o

posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 12:55am on 13/01/2006
wtf! omg! [if only that were a surprise - but it's not]


a large chunk of the dollars will be going to religious organisations ... they are, after all, "on message" with the government relevant federal pollies ...

May

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
          1
 
2
 
3
 
4 5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31