As the debate surrounding the many different facets of the Children and Families Bill gets underway, the Justice Committee has today just published its report on the proposals that have been made in relation to just what should go into the Bill and how it might work.
You can check out what the Committee’s response was to the government’s proposals and the concerns they express, most significantly in relation to private law issues including shared parenting legislation, which we’ve debated with interest on the blog recently and the potential changes to contact and residence orders.
The link above has all sorts of other very interesting content; including the Justice Committee’s Report (Report Number Four), a tracker page for the Bill and up to date news on the Justice Committee.
This Bill will continue to bristle with tensions and conflict. We’ll be very interested to see how this develops.
And yes, yes we are supposed to be on holiday. But we can’t help it. We love it. Damn it.
You’ll have read whats below Natasha,^ evidence of a certain Ms Lisa Harker, my comment on it is this:
Paul Manning…”I’m not the sharpest knife in the draw, but even I could have torn Harkers’s argument to shreds here. Her words are semantics, she is playing with idea’s not well founded. Eg, She states here: “we are worried that vulnerable families may feel that they have no choice but to agree contact arrangements that they feel are unsafe or unsuitable, not in the best interests of the child, because they themselves believe that the change is tantamount to an automatic presumption of shared contact.”, well then stupid woman in such a case as she describes , and there is an alleged threat, then thats why the wording is indeed a “Presumtion” not a damn guarantee! If such was the case then the paramountcy principle would superseed the presumption of any parent if the kids were at risk, cant we take that for granted. However that does not mean that a presumption, pre a court case should not be brought in as law, to give us all a level playing field, so we know where we stand regarding our parental rights to our children. This woman is just being biased in favour of mothers, she reeks of it!
^”Witnesses speaking against Shared Parenting legislation from the NSPCC: Lisa Harker, Head of the Strategy Unit, NSPCC, and Tom Rahilly, Head of Strategy and Development
Q135 Mr Buckland: Can I move on to shared parenting? We are all familiar now with the draft clause as it has emerged after the Norgrove report. There is a presumption that each parent shall enjoy a meaningful relationship with the children or, rather, the child shall enjoy a meaningful relationship with both parents. It is important that we get it the right way round because these are all about children’s rights rather than parental rights. There are a couple of provisions within that draft clause that allow that presumption to be rebutted in certain circumstances. Do you think that the balance is about right now or do you still have concerns about the introduction of this presumption?
Lisa Harker: I would like to start by putting on record that the NSPCC agrees that children benefit from having a meaningful relationship with both parents post-separation where this is safe, but we do oppose the clause as worded for three reasons.
First, we are concerned that the introduction of a presumption will, inadvertently, dilute the paramountcy principle. I know that that is not the Government’s intention, but we are concerned that by putting it forward, by placing on the statute the presumption, it takes the attention away from what we believe to be the most important consideration above all, which is the welfare of the child. That is our first and foremost concern.
Secondly, we are worried that it would increase litigation and conflict. We know from the introduction of a similar provision in Australia that that was the case. It was interpreted as a new right by parents and that led, initially, to increased litigation. The law, subsequently, had to be changed to reinforce the priority of the safety of the child.
Thirdly, we are worried that vulnerable families may feel that they have no choice but to agree contact arrangements that they feel are unsafe or unsuitable, not in the best interests of the child, because they themselves believe that the change is tantamount to an automatic presumption of shared contact. This was also the case in Australia where we know that it led to an increased reluctance to disclose abuse and violence as a result of the reforms.
So how many of us ordinary people who have first hand experience of how SS operates have been consulted in these reports.