No abstract

In 2006, sweeping changes to the family law system were introduced in Australia. A central plank running through the changes was the need for courts and divorce professionals to consider whether a child spending ‘equal’ or else ‘substantial and significant’ periods of time with each parent would be in the child's best interests and be reasonably practicable. More recently, family violence amendments have led to greater weight being given to protecting children from harm. Yet neither set of legislative amendments appears to have led to marked changes in the incidence of shared‐time arrangements. We explore possible reasons for this surprising outcome.

No abstract