Fathers' rights campaigners say if the courts gave them a greater role in children's' lives, the new Parental Responsibility legislation might not be necessary.

They spoke out after attending a forum on the new law, hosted by Attorney General (AG) Kim Wilson.

Passed this summer, the bill aims to crack down on young people involved in crime and antisocial behaviour, and the parents who let them wreak havoc.

It allows the courts to impose parenting orders to compel parents to uphold their duty of care. Anti-social behaviour orders can also be imposed on young troublemakers, restricting them from associating with certain friends or entering certain buildings.

Child safety orders allow Child and Family Services to intervene to supervise parenting for up to twelve months.

The child curfew scheme allows Sen. Wilson to issue a curfew banning certain young people attending specified public venues for up to three months, if they are deemed likely to cause trouble [see main story].

Children are not liable to the curfew orders if they are accompanied by a responsible adult but if they are found in a banned venue without an adult, the Police must take them home.

The civil liability aspect of the law means that parents can be liable to pay damages of up to $10,000 if their child's conduct results in damage or destruction to someone else's property.

Among the parents who attended the forum the AG hosted at CedarBridge Academy on Thursday were Edward Tavares and Eldon Raynor of Childwatch, an organisation that campaigns for fairness in family law.

Mr. Tavares is pressing her to introduce Shared Parenting legislation, such as that currently being proposed in the UK.

The Shared Parenting Bill aims to make it easier for both parents to stay in a child's life following relationship breakdown. It is due to be debated in the British House of Commons next summer.

Such legislation is already in place in Australia, France, Denmark, Belgium and a number of US states. Mr. Tavares and Mr. Raynor both back the Parental Responsibility legislation but feel it should be used in tandem with Shared Parenting.

"I've been advocating for change for close to 20 years now. This is important legislation. It's important that children have both parents," said Mr. Tavares, who co-founded Childwatch.

Before deciding if parents should pay damages caused by their child, the courts have to first consider whether the parent was responsible for the care and control of the child at the time, or had made reasonable arrangements for the child to be supervised.

However, Mr. Tavares expressed concern that parents who do not play an active role in their children's lives could still wind up paying the price for their actions.

"If you leave it to the discretion of the judge I have known of cases where the fathers have been held accountable for issues they have nothing to do with, especially when they've not been in the lives of their children for years," he said.

Mr. Raynor said of the Parental Responsibility bill: "It's a start, but I think they should go to Shared Parenting first, because most of the situations here it's that people come from broken homes, when the mother's working three jobs and the mother wants to keep the child from the father. I think the courts should step in before this stuff goes on. Let the children have both parents double the discipline would help keep the children grounded."

Sen. Wilson listened to the points made by the campaigners, but did not indicate whether Government is considering Shared Parenting legislation.