A conference of the National Council for Single Mothers and their Children (NCSMC) was held at Trades Hall in Melbourne on July 25-26.
At the time that the NCSMC was formed in the early 1970s, unmarried mothers were perceived to be a threat to the institution of marriage. They were expected to give their babies up for adoption. Their children were legally deemed to be "illegitimate" and did not have inheritance rights. The mother's welfare rights were inadequate, where they existed.
In 2003, single mothers are perceived to be a threat to the institution of marriage by Prime Minister John Howard and his allies, the Blackshirts. The federal government is presently paving the way to force mothers to give up children to fathers.
Children in single-parent families are deprived of millions of dollars of unpaid child support payments, by non-resident parents who are unwilling to support their children.
The single parent's pension is fast disappearing into an across the board, mutual obligation, welfare payment designed to be the same for everybody.
How do we tackle this situation? In 1973 the newly formed NCSMC won a Supporting Mothers Benefit under the new federal Labor government, and conditions for children of single parents improved for the next 15 years with the introduction of the Family Court, and the Child Support Agency to collect "maintenance" payments.
Now, conditions are going downhill fast. The Howard government and the ruling class/patriarchy have an ideological obsession with a particular version of the family. The "husband" needs to go out to work and generate profit for the capitalists. The 'wife' should stay home and provide unpaid support to the husband, and produce the next generation of workers. This family unit props up the capitalist system by forcing women to work without pay, and Howard loves it.
Under this model, male partners tend not to do a lot of the housework and childraising (sorry guys — it's statistical fact), even if the female partner is going out to do her bit to generate profit for the capitalists as well.
The male partners generally find the low status, lack of pay and long hours unattractive. This is why after separation children tend to live with their mother — it's seen to be in the best interests of the child to maintain the care pattern from before the separation.
The majority of separating parents organise care arrangements for their children without resorting to a ruling from the Family Court. However, there is a group of men complaining that their child support commitments are too much, and that they don't get enough access to their children.
I think that to go down the path of a battle between separating parents is to be misled. We're all suffering under a class war led by John Howard, and our goal should be a good society in which to bring up children — excellent and free education, health care, child care, housing, public transport, a parenting wage and work for all, for a start.
In the meantime though, the next tactical step is to turn back the reactionary idea of giving disgruntled fathers "joint residency" (custody) after separation. The Family Court as it stands now gives highest priority to the best interests of children.
The present parliamentary inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation could ultimately lead to misguided parents asserting their "right" to custody of the child, and maybe even Centrelink delightedly announcing that neither parent is now the "sole parent", and they can both go on Newstart. The losers in this scenario will be the children.
BY LINDA SEABORN
[The author is a member of the Hobart branch of the Socialist Alliance.]
From Green Left Weekly, August 13, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.