高清福利片

高清福利片 outlets have pounced on a Family Court 鈥溾�� for parents of a six-year-old boy to not smoke around the child and to limit their alcohol consumption while caring for him.聽聽that the case represents an unacceptable 鈥渋ntervention by the courts into the personal space of the individual鈥�, and that it was an attempt at 鈥渟ocial engineering".

The idea of a court intervening in family life to prevent what might seem like fairly ordinary activities, such as occasional tobacco smoking or having a glass of wine or two, might seem like evidence of an overreaching 鈥渘anny state鈥�. And perhaps it would be if that鈥檚 actually what happened 鈥� but it didn鈥檛.

It is true, though, that the 鈥渞ight to parent鈥� according to one鈥檚 own values and proclivities isn鈥檛 unfettered. The state can and will intervene in family life in various circumstances.

A definite jurisdiction

State Supreme Courts have powers to make orders under their protective jurisdiction to allow important medical treatment to go ahead if parents won鈥檛 consent, for instance. The NSW Supreme Court聽聽where a Jehovah鈥檚 Witness parent refused a life-saving blood transfusion on behalf of their child.

State agencies can also intercede in family life under child protection laws when a child is at risk of significant harm. This kind of coercive intervention is reserved for serious cases where the child鈥檚 basic needs are not being met. And it generally requires much more than a parent who smokes or drinks too much from time to time to trigger intervention.

But child protection laws have also聽聽when parents of a severely overweight boy didn鈥檛 go to hospital for treatment, or appropriately manage his diet (the ten-year-old boy later died from heart failure associated with obesity). And when a father, who believed HIV was an invention of pharmaceutical companies,聽聽prescribed by doctors.

Not everyone will agree on the limits drawn around decisions parents are allowed to make. But most will agree that the public interest in protecting children means limits must be placed somewhere. And 鈥渞isk of significant harm鈥� doesn鈥檛 seem like a bad starting point.

In addition to child protection laws, the Family Court will intervene in the parenting of children when asked to do so by parents who cannot agree on the relevant decisions themselves. In settling these disputes, the guiding principle is that the court will act to protect the 鈥渂est interests of children鈥�.

But how do courts interpret this rather wide concept, and where do the limits of personal parental prerogatives lie when a court tries to strike a balance between the strongly held views of parents who bitterly disagree?

The particular case

In the聽聽that has provoked so much comment, the Family Court decided that despite the fact the child鈥檚 mother was his primary carer and was 鈥渦tterly dedicated to the child鈥檚 needs鈥�, it would be in his best interests to live with his father.

The orders were influenced by the mother鈥檚 preference for the advice of her naturopath over an accredited medical practitioner, which the court found was to the detriment of the child; her 鈥渃onscientious objection to vaccination鈥�; and her 鈥渃lear and unwavering belief that the child obtains nothing from an ongoing relationship with his father鈥�.

The father, on the other hand, appeared to the court to have a better view of the child鈥檚 medical needs and was 鈥渢he parent more likely to support [the child] in his relationship with his mother鈥�.

Among the 45 orders the court made were two proposed by the mother 鈥� that both parents be 鈥渞estrained from smoking in the presence of the child鈥� and that they will refrain from consuming alcohol 鈥渢o excess鈥�, or at least to the point of being unable to drive, while the child is in their care. The father agreed to these, in a suite of orders in which his interests mostly prevailed.

These are known as 鈥渃onsent orders鈥� - and they鈥檙e quite different to coercive interventions under child protection laws. In fact, health-related agreements are becoming a common feature of consent orders in a culture that increasingly values health and wellness, and in which many parents are likely to want assurances from the other that their child will be in a 鈥渉ealthy鈥� environment when not in their care.

These kinds of concessions are negotiated in families every day of the week 鈥� 鈥渢ake Harry to the physio鈥�, or 鈥減lease can we not have pizza again because last time Sam got sick鈥�. In this sense, consent orders reflect familiar family compromises and the parents鈥� own values 鈥� rather than an out-of-control nanny state imposing orders on passive parents.

It鈥檚 just that these fairly unremarkable agreements have been written down and stamped by the court because goodwill has evaporated and parents no longer trust each other to honour everyday deals.

The long arm of the law?

Indeed, the most interesting aspect of this case is perhaps not the agreement by both parents not to smoke in front of their child or get so drunk that they can鈥檛 drive, but that in determining a child鈥檚 best interests, the overriding priority for the court was securing 鈥渢he benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child鈥檚 parents鈥�.

To many people the idea that a father who had never been in a stable relationship with the mother and had little previous involvement with him should be entitled to a relationship with the child to the extent that his mother鈥檚 role as primary carer was lost, would seem ludicrous. But the Family Law Act takes the position that a relationship with both parents will, in the absence of risk of harm to the child, be considered paramount.

With regard to smoking and drinking, there was agreement between the parents with the imprimatur of the court 鈥� rather than an order being 鈥渋mposed鈥�. The most serious issue that remained in dispute was the child鈥檚 right to a relationship with both his parents - and this was where the court really did impose the values of the Family Law Act.

Otherwise, unilateral state intervention is reserved for much more serious cases where significant harm is in the offing. So, you can still have a smoko while your child is at home without fear of being touched by the long arm of the law.