Legal: DV paragraph

[Mayyyy]

Hey, I've been struggling to cut down on my DV paragraph and my parenting plans paragraph for an essay I have coming up so I can manage to write it in time.
The question is:
To what extent does the law encourage cooperation and resolve conflict in regard to family?
Here are the paragraphs:

Parenting plans introduced under the Family Law Amendment Act 1995 are documents that are voluntarily entered into by the parents through mediation that deal the child's living arrangements.
Mediation is a compulsory firsts step for all separating couples that are seeking custody and encourages cooperation between disputing parties in order to reach a mutually agreeable
Resolution that was in the best interests of the child and reduce potential for further conflict. If parents cannot reach a resolution, they must refer to the Family Court for a parenting order. However, the Family Court was criticised for favouring the mother over the father in parenting arrangements. The Lone Father's Association lobbied the government for change, demanding that the adversarial nature of the Family Court change in order to uphold equality and fair treatment for both parties in relationship breakdown by recognising fathers’ rights to meaningful relationships and involvement in their child's life. In response, the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 was introduced. The Act encourages cooperative parenting after separation by introducing shared parental responsibility and reinforces the focus on the use of mediation-to resolve conflict. This allows both parties to engage in open communication and have input in the decision-making process to reach a win-win solution, thereby encouraging cooperation to resolve a conflict- leading to a more stable and healthy family environment for the growth and development of the child. In theory, the reform balances the rights of parents to meaningful involvement and the child’s to meaningful relationship with both parents, as outlined under CROC. However, up to 79% of separation cases that involved allegations of family violence were awarded equal parental responsibility, as evident in the media article, “Family Law inquiry is no sop to Hanson. It’s a deliberate move to bury previous reviews” (the guardian, 2019).  This demonstrates that judges are disproportionality issuing these orders as a means of resolving conflict in inappropriate situations, and prioritising child’s rights to ‘ongoing contact’ rather than right to care and protection. Furthermore, the judiciaries are misinterpreting the terms equal parental responsibility and shared parental responsibility, believing them to mean the same thing. 83% of cases that involved allegations of violence/child abuse resulted in parenting orders that were based on the equal parental responsibility principle, as evident in the media article. This can expose the child to harm and instability-undermining care and protection, hence failing to comply with rights under CROC.

Domestic violence refers to the personal violence committed against someone when the offender has-or has had-a ‘domestic relationship’ with- as defined in the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW). Domestic violence can take place in different forms, such as physical or emotional abuse, however all behaviours inflict harm upon the victim. Domestic violence has been a prevalent issue in the past and continues to be so, exposing victims to harm and in some cases death as 38% of homicide cases that occur every year stem from domestic violence situations (BOSCAR). The adversarial nature of separation cases in the Family Court result in a win-lose solution for parties in relationship breakdown, which often encourages criminal acts, such as spousal revenge due to lack of a suitable solution that encourages cooperation between both parties. This is evident in the R v Freeman (2009) case, in which, Arthur Freeman was sentenced for a period of 32 years non parole after murdering his daughter Darcey. During a case of relationship breakdown with his wife, Freeman was given reduced visitation hours and in response, threw his daughter over the West Gate Bridge. The media article “Darcey Freeman inquest: Doctors knew father who threw 4yo off Melbourne’s West Gate Bridge was violent, court hears” (ABC news, 2015) reveals that Darcey’s mother’s warned about her husband’s ‘irrational…violent’ behaviour to her GPs but it was not reported to authorities. There exist mandatory reporting obligations for medical practitioners who are suspicious of child abuse, however these are ‘subjective’ and were overlooked due to police already being present in the case. The loose criteria around the reporting placed the child at a risk of further harm undermining safety and security. In response, the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011 was introduced. The reform increased the reporting requitements threshold for doctors and legal personal, with suspicion acting as enough evidence to report to authorities. The proactive measure ensures that law enforcements personal can investigate cases and intervene before the violence escalates. This better upholds the rights of children to care and protection in domestic violence situations by reducing exposure to harm. Furthermore, the Act allows FACs to participate in legal proceedings and provide the Family Court with the necessary investigative data regarding family violence and abuse history, thereby encouraging cooperation between legal entities in order to resolve conflict. As a result, the Family Court can make informed and appropriate decisions concerning the living arrangements of the child. This ensures that parenting orders are made in the best interests of the child and uphold care and protection. Contrastingly, increasing the reporting threshold and encouraging cooperation with the Family Court results in FACs being inundated with cases regarding allegations of violence, which can be based on minimal suspicion. This creates resource efficiency issues, hindering FACs ability to investigate adequately intervene, exposing children to further harm-undermining the care and protection of children and creating further conflict.

thank you so much