He said, she said. Is there any way to talk about this sad subject without taking sides? And a thought for a reviewer: how to resist the temptation to find a book a ‘good book’ if you agree with its arguments, and a ‘bad book’ if you disagree? I disagree with most of what John Hirst has to say in Kangaroo Court: Family law in Australia, but I’m trying to be fair. The essay is lucidly written (indeed, its message could hardly be clearer); it is extensively, if selectively, researched; and it raises important matters that we, as a society, need to think about.

According to Hirst, a La Trobe University historian, the Family Court of Australia has, in following the principle of ‘no fault’, abandoned moral judgment. It is a court that has allowed thousands of good and loving fathers to be deprived of their children. It is a court that is powerless to enforce its own orders when mothers (it’s always mothers) refuse to cooperate with access orders.