Bad dads or broken fathers: The dark side of men’s rights groups taking on the family law system

“I don’t even know where my kids live, go to school ... deprived of the basic rights as a father, the only thing that is enforced is my child support ... the system is broken.” Cries for help like this one flood the Facebook page of the Australian Brotherhood of Fathers, a Queensland-based lobby group with ties to Pauline Hanson’s One Nation which is among a growing number of men’s rights groups that have become a beacon for disenfranchised dads who feel let down by the family law system. The posts make for difficult reading. Men detail alienation from their children and allude to ugly separations, while women share stories on behalf of their partners who are in the midst of acrimonious separations which have ended in the Family Court. In some cases the comments become resentful towards women, who are painted as manipulative. At the centre of it all, of course, are vulnerable children, and it is the welfare of these children that Australian Brotherhood of Fathers founder Leith Erikson says drives him. But in its bid to highlight issues with the family law system, which the ABF believes is biased against fathers and pushes a false narrative in which only women can be victims, the group has constructed a narrative of its own that experts have warned is deceitful and dangerous. Two weeks ago, former AFL player-turned-reality TV star Darren Jolly brought to the surface an issue which so often unfolds behind closed doors when he detailed the anguish and “unbearable pain” he was in at being separated from his children. Jolly and wife Deanne, who appeared in two seasons of reality show The Block, separated 14 months ago. The ABF shared Jolly’s story and it received more than 5000 comments and was shared 7000 times. Fathers then shared their own stories, which were laced with simmering anger, pain and frustration over ongoing custody battles. “I have my family law trial coming up and my matter has gone on for nearly three years,” one wrote. “Haven’t seen my two boys for over two years now and can’t afford the $20,000-plus to go through the court system ... the system is wrong,” another said. Anger towards women, and a suggestion some are using their children as pawns in custody battles, infiltrate discussions. It is this anger the ABF has harnessed — and, some argue inflamed — in its campaign for change. Mr Erikson denied interview requests, instead referring The Sunday Times to his group’s public statements and parliamentary submissions. These contain suggestions some women are “playing the victim” and making false domestic violence allegations to withhold access to children or gain the upper hand in custody battles. “Often the motive is payback for a failed relationship and the kids are being used to extort cash and inflict as much emotional and psychological abuse as possible,” the ABF wrote. “It’s a game most are never prepared for when relationships end, and one that is killing Australian fathers in large numbers every day.” This claim is at the centre of the group’s #21Fathers campaign, which states 21 Australian dads take their own lives every week because of family access issues. A fact check shows this figure is misleading, or at best impossible to prove. While it is known family breakdowns can lead to depression and anxiety, and in some cases may lead to suicidal thoughts or acts of self-harm, there is no firm data to back up the ABF’s figure. The Australian Bureau of Statistics collects data on self-harm by age and gender, and recent figures show the number of men taking their own lives is on the rise, reaching 48 a week in 2019. But the data doesn’t give an insight into the reasons behind these deaths, and experts warn against attributing suicide to a single factor. One Nation has previously echoed the figure and, when questioned, the party’s former Queensland leader Steve Dickson attributed it to anecdotal evidence from paramedics. The ABF acknowledges on its website its campaign is based on anecdotal evidence, but despite this, regular posts to its almost 70,000 followers on Facebook all finish with the #21Fathers hashtag, while lapel pins, patches and T-shirts emblazoned with the hashtag are for sale on its website. Queensland University of Technology associate professor of sociology Michael Flood has been studying the rise of men’s rights groups for more than a decade. He said many fathers joined such groups to find support and advice at a difficult time, rather than to seek political change. “But (the groups) don’t necessarily provide that support and in fact can encourage their members to engage in destructive and harmful legal strategies, and can entrench a sense of anger, blame and hostility towards ex-partners, which is the last thing you need when trying to build a constructive co-parenting relationship,” he said. “That’s disastrous because men going through separation and divorce undoubtedly do it tough ... there is increased risk of suicide, and it’s a risky time for depression. “Absolutely men need support, my point is that fathers’ rights groups seem particularly poorly-placed to assist.” Dr Flood said three experiences tended to bring men into the movement: painful experiences of divorce and separation; accompanying experiences of family law; and the loss of contact with children. He said there had been an explosion online of men’s rights groups, known as the “manosphere”, characterised by increasingly violent and misogynistic rhetoric. “The online organising has increased and that is radicalising some men towards more extremist and more violent views,” Dr Flood said. They included a call from one group, not connected with the ABF, urging dads to take their children interstate and to falsely accuse their ex-partners of domestic violence. Dr Flood believes an increase in appropriate services for men going through separations, and direct challenges to inflammatory or incorrect information online could lessen the need for many men to turn to online groups. Driving Mr Erikson and the fathers’ rights movement more generally is a perceived gender bias in family court proceedings and the way domestic violence is handled in Australia. Few would disagree the family law system needs an overhaul. In fact, a joint parliamentary committee is currently carrying out the third wide-ranging inquiry into the system in as many years. The committee, which is due to report back by February, received 1699 submissions detailing “systemic failures” which plague an “unwieldy” and costly system beset with delays and letting down the very people it was designed to help. In its submission, the ABF called for a royal commission to investigate the impact, cost and harm of the family law and child support system; an independent oversight body; and the development of a new non-adversarial alternative to the family court. “Both parents need to enter the system on equal and equivalent footing. At the moment this is not the case: with every single service, support and process heavily gender biased against fathers,” Mr Erikson wrote in his submission. “As a result fathers are much more likely to suffer emotionally, psychologically and physiologically. “They are much more likely to lose meaningful access with their children. “The system takes children from heavily engaged fathers one day, removes them entirely the next, in some cases for years, and then may never again re-establish the same deep relationship and parental role that the father once had. “This is another stolen generation and it is another gross shame on our society.” Mr Erikson, who unsuccessfully ran as an independent in last month’s Queensland election, will appear before another Federal parliamentary inquiry this month, into family, domestic and sexual violence. He is expected to voice concern with the domestic violence “business model” which, the ABF argues, “relies on the false narrative to stay the same which means only women can be victims.” In its submission to the inquiry, the ABF has recommended that a minister for men be appointed to Parliament, that the national domestic violence plan be amended to include men, and that all family law and domestic violence services be “gender neutralised”. One Nation Senator Pauline Hanson, deputy chair of the family law inquiry, has previously spoken in agreement with the ABF’s key concerns. “There are people out there who are nothing but liars and will use that in the court system. You can’t defend these people and I will not defend them,” she said last year. But data from the Australian Institute of Family Studies casts doubt on these claims. According to its research, only 3 per cent of separated parents use the courts in their separation arrangements, and only 3 per cent of court orders stipulate that children have no contact with one parent. A study based on court files showed in both court and non-court ordered arrangements, it was most common for children to spend the majority of their time with their mother and to see their father regularly. Lavan Legal senior associate in family law Tamara Arapovic described the idea of gender bias in the courts as a dangerous fallacy. She said there had actually been a shift in the past decade towards shared parenting as society moved away from “old-fashioned” roles of women solely as child-bearers and men as breadwinners. “I think today courts prefer to focus on shared parenting arrangements and to establish which parent is the most suitable primary carer, or as we’re seeing over the last five to seven years, grandparents, aunties and uncles are becoming primary carers because of the rise of drugs, alcohol and substance abuse,” she told The Sunday Times. “There is no gender bias in the legislation. It is written in a gender-neutral way. The two main tenets are that the child has a right to benefit from a meaningful relationship with both parents, and secondly they have the right to be protected from family violence.” Ms Arapovic said given the capacity for errors in human judgment, “of course” there may be fathers who have had time with their children reduced because of false allegations. “I accept there may be circumstances where that happens, but on balance the evidence points to a system that is trying to do its best to take allegations seriously on an interim level,” she said. Where the system does fail, Ms Arapovic argues, is with the lengthy delays which further compound and exacerbate any allegations that are made. In WA, Ms Arapovic estimated separating couples could wait three to five months to get from an application to an interim hearing, and 18 months to two years for a final hearing if “everything is flowing well”. “The delays are significant, and cuts to Legal Aid means many parents end up representing themselves ... which only makes the process more difficult for the court,” she said. Ms Arapovic shares the view of many in the legal fraternity that another inquiry, coming just months after a comprehensive Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry made 60 recommendations, is a waste of precious time and resources. “We need to get on with what has already been produced,” she said. Prominent Perth chef Nic Wood has a message for any fathers who are navigating the complicated world of parenting post-separation. “The biggest advice I can give to any father is ‘you’ve got to get rid of the anger’,” he said this week. “It doesn’t help the father, the mother and it definitely doesn’t help the child. And never give up on your kids, or yourself.” Mr Wood is passionate about men’s mental health, having been through his own challenging time following a divorce nine years ago. Mr Wood, the executive chef at the QT, has not seen his teenage daughter in three years and said he had tried unsuccessfully to make contact with her. He has a young son with his partner and hopes his children will one day meet. “It’s heartbreaking. I never want to see anybody go through this,” he said. “I want her to know I’m out here and I want to see her.” Mr Wood has thrown himself into charity work and drawn support from this, and from those who have reached out in response to his social media posts detailing his struggles. “The response was astronomical ... people I’m close with have been going through the same stuff. It does help to talk about it,” he said. Mr Wood wanted to speak out so other struggling fathers might not feel so alone. He said he had come into contact with dads’ rights groups but found they tended to be “bitter”. He believes the family law system needed to focus more on the rights of the child. “Every child needs their mum and dad — I feel like mothers get more rights,” he said. What fathers’ rights groups and other advocacy organisations do agree on is the need for change, in particular greater focus on mediation, addressing court delays and avoiding messy and costly court battles. In WA, steps are already being taken with impressive results. The Family Court of WA, which is the only State family court in Australia, recently concluded a pilot mediation program to help parents reach a resolution and avoid heading to court. Before this, the court was only able to offer one to two- hour conciliation conferences in financial matters. The program required separating couples to attend one-day confidential conferences with a registrar. Of the 278 conferences completed in the 12 months to June this year, 145, or more than half, resulted in all issues being resolved. Another 65 resulted in partial resolution, and 68 resulted in no issues being resolved. The court estimates the pilot saved 334 sitting days by a judge or magistrate in hearing trials, and as a result permanent registrars now provide additional mediation. Next year 800 full-day and half-day mediations will be offered, with a focus on self-represented litigants. While the impact on the court is clear, the impact on families is just as significant. Feedback from those who have benefited from the program suggest it gave them the one thing which had alluded them for years: hope. “I see value in this process,” one parent said. “It gave me hope our child would not be lost in the system.” Another said: “I have hope for the first time in nearly four years.”