There has been some very interesting debate on Researching Reform recently on the presumption of shared parenting but we’d like to extend the debate and take a look at the possible implications of such a presumption and ask whether this legal remedy is really a cure, or a likely cause of future harm to the welfare of children experiencing family breakdown in England.
The family justice system is often described as a blunt instrument by professionals who work in it because the family courts offer very little by way of truly tailored outcomes, restricted by process, conflicts of interest, culture and whether we like it or not, wildly fluctuating levels of competence in every sector of the system. Ensuring that families get the best possible outcome is fraught with constraints and results in both mothers and fathers feeling let down. And it is the children who suffer the most as a result, because the system still does not understand children well enough.
There can be no sensible debate over the issue as to whether children should have the opportunity to spend time with both their parents. It is hugely important for children to be able to do that whenever possible, not least of all because our children should have access to the people who love them. But when we look at a system which is attempting to cater for all families from all walks of life, with differing backgrounds and perceptions, we have to make sure that whatever processes are in place can deliver the most efficient and personal service, for everyone. Today, that service is still unacceptably limited.
Whilst speculation runs rife over what the government intends to do in relation to shared parenting, it has made it clear that it intends to consider placing some kind of presumption of shared care inside the Children Act 1989, which might require courts to presume that shared care should be the norm unless evidence can be shown to the contrary either by inserting this consideration as part of the welfare checklist or adding it in as a starting point. The exact list of suggestions is added below:
- The Government would like to amend the Children Act 1989 to require the court to “work on the presumption that a child’s welfare is likely to be furthered through safe involvement with both parents – unless the evidence shows this not to be safe or in the child’s best interests”.
- requiring the courts to have regard to a principle that a child’s welfare is likely to be furthered through involvement with both parents;
- providing that the court’s starting point in making decisions about children’s care is that a child’s welfare is likely to be furthered through involvement with both parents, and;
- inserting a new sub-section immediately after the welfare checklist, setting an additional factor which the court would need to consider.
There is nothing wrong with the suggestions themselves. They are reasonable and to our mind rational, but they fail to prescribe in detail exactly what they mean by ‘involvement with both parents’. And this is what has been the cause of much debate.
Shared parenting by definition implies that children are spending time with both their parents. At its purest interpretation, it means just that – no set amounts of time, no prescribed forms of contact. But this is not what has caused concern amongst professionals and parents inside the system. The real wrangle is over the much more political definition of shared parenting, which automatically assumes that children should spend equal amounts of time with each parent.
Until the government clarifies what it means by ‘involvement with both parents’, speculation will continue to mount.
But there is also a question mark over the legality, or compatibility of including a presumption of shared parenting, of any kind and definition, when we consider the existence of the Paramountcy Principle, which tells us that the welfare of the child must be paramount when deciding family cases. At its best, an added presumption would simply behave like an echo of the Paramountcy Principle, making it a pretty innocuous addition and at worst, where ‘involvement’ were to be defined as a 50/50 time share, it would be in direct contravention of The Principle, whose starting point is not prescribed, but fluid, allowing for the possibility of greater personalisation for contact and therefore better outcomes for children.
The Paramountcy Principle is the finest standard we have in ensuring that children can be with both their parents where it’s right for them to be so, but it is not working as well as a safeguard as it should, and the government’s recent decision to consider adding a presumption may well be an indication of an acknowledgement on this front, or a very ambiguous nod to fathers’ rights groups who have long campaigned for a change in the law. But what if these quarters are wrong? What if our Paramountcy Principle is failing us, not because it is not good law, but because it is law without the support on the ground which it needs to succeed? And if that is the case, (which we believe it is) a presumption in shared parenting is doomed to fail also, whatever its definition and will leave fathers’ rights groups feeling more than a little disappointed.
The family justice system doesn’t need more law. What it needs is a thorough revamp, which we hope it will receive through Mr Justice Ryder’s modernisation programme and which needs to involve some serious culture changes, many of which we have written about before. A presumption of shared parenting, however one looks at it, is a presumption too far.
forcedadoption said:
I prefer to turn the proposition around to say there should be a very strong presumption that children should be allowed unlimited contact with BOTH parents if they want it even if it is only by email and telephone in some cases (where long distances are involved or they are in foster care etc).If parents have committed no crimes against children they should always be allowed some form of face to face contact if the children themselves wish it and are allowed to express themselves freely ie not through a guardian or solicitor who will often say the opposite of what the children want “in their best interests”
Babies and some toddlers will of course not be able to express theselves and in their cases the presumption of shared parenting (not necessarily equal parenting) would be a good thing.
LikeLike
Kingsley Miller said:
forcedadoption, ‘Unlimited contact’ is an excellent starting point, if impractical. I would just like to make the point when the baby is born, the research tells us, fathers make just as good parents as mothers. There is no difference even in the early years. kip
LikeLike
forcedadoption said:
i can never see why either parents should be jailed for sending a birthday card ,an email,or waving in the streetat their children but it still happens………
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Yes, that is absurd, even if under the name of emotional harm. If the parent has committed a criminal offence however, or has physically hurt the child, that to my mind, would be different.
LikeLike
kipmiller said:
Natasha, How come Shared Parenting legislation is working successfully in Australia and a growing number of other jurisdictions? Why should children in the UK be deprived of Shared Parenting? On the one hand you want the judiciary to have more discretion and on the other you want greater clarification. Which is it to be? kip
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi Kip, the clarification I’m asking for is on what the government means by the term ‘involvement’, and is not related to the idea of discretion.
At this stage we do not know what kind of shared parenting presumption will be put in place. Are you assuming it will be a 50/50 time share, is that your preferred starting point or are you simply agreeing with the notion of contact for both parents where possible, without looking to prescribe a specific base line in terms of time?
LikeLike
pauldmanning said:
With respect Natasha, you have said this before. Yes in a fair and ideal family court systemt the Paramountcy Principle would seemingly be the cover all for the whole issue and logically its application would seemingly solve all the problems of contact and residency, since the child is being put first. ‘Simple as that’ you might think, but its not! The pure logic of what you say is entirely understandable and easy for a judge to apply, but on one condition! It is this… we fathers do not think we are being given fair and equal access to our children! Given that we know this and truly believe it in our souls, (because we won’t shift from it) then the only way forward for us is to have a presumption of shared parenting. Yes most of us would agree with your idea that the Paramountcy Principle is sufficient if we truly felt we had parity, but we don’t. So as many times as you run this idea by us, even though we see its seeming logic, we see only an unfair bias against us, as long as it’s there, then we will keep on asking for the presumption anyway, and this will give us a fair starting point… Equality! What is it that mothers are frightened of if we get it? I can’t work that out.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
I hear you, Paul. I think the point I’m making is that an imbalance cannot be addressed or fixed with a presumption of shared parenting.
LikeLike
pauldmanning said:
Respectfully I disagree. I know I keep quoting that 97% of residency is given to the mother, does this figure not suprise you? How can you account for such a huge disparity? Is such a figure entirely due to violent fathers or fathers that are a potential risk to their children? It needs explaining, surely you must see that? I can only assume then, from logical extrapolation, that this figure has been arrived at by one factor, and that is gender based, ie: a court position of: ‘mother gets the kids by default’. I take it Natasha that you are a modern woman with no issues of bias towards your own sex, I take that for granted and credit that to you. So then, we are equal and fathers can take care of their children equally to mothers, if this has nothing to do with bias, why then should such a figure have come about? Since this Elephant in the room is being ignored, then we fathers also smell a rat in the same room. The only way around this is a presumption in law that we have equal access to our kids, this is a starting point that surely will cut down upon the looming figure of 97% custody.
I see a court scenario whereupon a mother and a father stand before a judge, both are equal before him in everyway, neither has harmed the children and there are no accusations of such. Both love the kids with all their hearts and the kids love them in return. However, the Judge now comes to making his ruling, he knows that historically that mother will get custody, so he goes along with this practice and makes an order for such and father will have to work along with the mother in getting contact, (Urggh!). Seemingly thats the way its going to go here in this scenario. BUT, the law has now changed and the father has a presumption of shared care of his children. He turns to the judge and says “Your honour on what basis have you made this decision? Unless there is a factor that prohibits me from the same consideration I cannot understand it?” He further goes on and says “Ok, if this is to be your decision, (that mother gets custody), the fact is that there is now a presumption of shared care and I ask therefore that the children are with me half of the time, in fact I insist upon it your honour.” In this scenario you now see why a presumption is a protection to fathers who have been historically (97%) being left out of the picture and have had to apply for some contact. This is all we are asking for, A PRESUMPTION IN LAW OF SHARED CARE OF OUR CHILDREN. All other matters as to how that time is going to be alloted is a matter for the parents to work out, im sure there will be some flexibility in their agreeing on this. Whats wrong with this Natasha?
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi Paul, notwithstanding your statistic I can believe that the resident parents is usually the mother, but I don’t attribute that to foul play in most cases. Generally speaking, kids don’t want to move around a lot, they need stability, and prior to divorce or separation a great many kids are looked after by mum, still. Now, that may seem odd given the rising number of women in the workplace, but not all these women have children and it is still very much the case that most homes have mum taking care of the kids and dad going out to work during marriage or cohabitation. Once family breakdown sets in, everyone’s world is turned upside down, and children tend to react by wanting to keep to as close a routine as they had before, as possible.
However, this should not be confused with contact itself or those cases where one parent really is trying to bully the other out of contact and inside the system we see that a lot, which gives the impression that it is the norm and I don’t doubt that this happens to families who don’t go through the court process, but the figure you quote does not mean that 97% of fathers don’t see their children – it just means that they don’t provide the main home, or the anchor if you like.
There are all sorts of debates around quality versus quantity of contact, as I’m sure you know as there are debates over influence by the resident parent over the child, and so much more, but ultimately this debate needs to focus on what is going to work and if the Paramountcy Principle can’t deliver, bearing in mind that it is intended to ensure the best outcomes for children with contact involving both parents where possible is implied, why would anyone think that a presumption of shared parenting is likely to fare any better.
LikeLike
pauldmanning said:
I see that you are not addressing my point Natasha, although you do say: “notwithstanding your statistic I can believe that the resident parents is usually the mother, but I don’t attribute that to foul play in most cases.” tell me then how can should a massive disparity be? What, besides gender, can account for it? Its as if you are prepared to accept the staus quo as being just and right, since you further state a reason for this: “Generally speaking, kids don’t want to move around a lot, they need stability, and prior to divorce or separation a great many kids are looked after by MUM, still.” In effect you make my point for me by saying that, because you are admitting that the status quo is acceptable to you. The Status quo has been rigged and thats why we want to change it, I want to get to the point where you can state the opposite…”Generally speaking, kids don’t want to move around a lot, they need stability, and prior to divorce or separation a great many kids are looked after by DAD.” Of course the kids are looked after by MUM as you say, but the point is how have did we got to this position? Because mothers who are separated from thier partners get the kids 97% of the time, thats why. We need to change the whole complexion of this state of affairs, we are now living in modern times, where dad can look after the kids and be as close to them just as much as Mum can.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Paul, I did address your point. The disparity, as I mentioned earlier is due to the fact that most homes still have mum as primary carer prior to separation.
Where dad is the primary carer prior to separation, it makes sense for that to continue. Living in modern times shouldn’t mean subjecting everyone to one way of life – it should mean accommodating diversity.
LikeLike
pauldmanning said:
Let me tell you Natasha for a fact, that a father being the primary carer of his children holds no water with a judge when it comes to divorcing. I should know, i was the primary carer of my son and I still didnt get residency, but she did! And so the bias goes on. So how on earth can we fathers ever get to a point where you can say to me “Generally speaking, kids don’t want to move around a lot, they need stability with the resident parent…. DAD, and not always or mostly MUM? The fact is this whole situation has been brought about by judges just giving the kids to mum, what will stop that ….presumption 50 50.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Paul, you’ve just answered the question I asked you. In a situation where a father has been the primary carer and there is no reason for that not to continue post divorce or separation, if a court changes the arrangements to the detriment of a child, then clearly that court is not applying the law. Logic dictates then, that a presumption of any kind will not be of benefit in such situations.
As for 50/50, I would disagree. There is no reason why a child should not spend more time with one parent if that is what feels right at the time.
LikeLike
pauldmanning said:
I can only leave you with one comment posted by the Quantumvaleat blog, (with their given permission) that says more about fathers not having their rights than I ever could. And a link to an item about one loving father who killed himself due to losing contact with his kids due to his ex’s inability to put the kids first. Enuff said.
“I need to do more….
by quantumvaleat
I have just taken a call from a man who was looking for some free advice, nothing unusual in that, I get anything up to 30 calls a day from people requesting such advice.
However, the nature of this call, and the gentleman himself affected me in a way that rarely happens. Usually my calls are about financial division, or advice on how to dissipate assets (those are short calls on my part) or how to fill in Form E – run of the mill, dry enquires. Sometimes the calls are more interesting – a complex case, a pushy new partner overly involved in her partner’s contact case, or those that say “I have a Final Hearing in 30 minutes what do I need to do to prepare for it”; or the downright bizarre calls I receive from time to time. Sometimes I feel frustrated at not being able to help enough, or exasperated that the caller won’t listen to the [free] advice being given, or relieved that a long call has ended. Never have I cried after putting the phone down – until today.
Halfway through this call, the gentleman said he hadn’t seen his 3 1/2 year old daughter for over two years – she was only 14 months old the last time he saw her, held her, hugged her, or heard her laugh. He had been “awarded” (awful word) one hour every fortnight in a contact centre – time hard fought for in the face of numerous false allegations of violent and abusive conduct . He told me that he sees his little girl for the first time next month, for one hour. We talked about this precious one hour, what it meant to him to just to be able to see her face again, and to talk with her. He paused and said “I don’t know her now, I don’t know what to do when I have that time with her”. I suggested taking colouring books, story books, a jigsaw puzzle, something that is interactive that Dad and daughter can do together. He said he didn’t know what story books to buy, that he didn’t know what she would like; he sounded broken and very lost. I hope that after our conversation, he felt that he wasn’t quite so alone in the world and promised to call me again after this precious one hour of contact had taken place. I will be looking forward to that call and wish him most sincerely that it is the best 60 minutes of his life in recent times.
I’m not sure why this particular call upset me so, I can speak to any number of fathers who are being denied contact in any given week, and while I find those calls difficult at times, it is all I can do offer guidance and support. It isn’t enough. I am not a solicitor or a barrister, just a mere paralegal working for a voluntary organisation. I need to do more, much more than I already do. And I will. Watch this space.”
http://antimisandry.com/marriage-divorce-children-choice-men/father-commits-suicide-after-his-manipulative-wife-filed-divorce-denied-him-access-his-son-49696.html#ixzz2E0SvKYiS
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Just by way of an aside Paul, I do a lot of pro bono work for both mothers and fathers. I have worked with fathers who were wrongly denied contact and tried very hard to make contact happen for them. Sometimes I manage it, sometimes I don’t. As a Daddy’s Girl myself, I find it deeply distressing when good fathers are pushed away because of anger and hurt from the other side. Anger and hurt that should not play a part in contact.
However, I still feel that presumptions are not the way forward. It’s just not going to cut it.
LikeLike
pauldmanning said:
It makes me glad that you say this Natasha and shows that you have no gender bias and have a caring attitude. But surely, by what your saying, you can see the uphill struggle we fathers are having in trying to see our kids? Surely you must see that the Judges are somehow making fathers jump through to many hoops to have to prove ourselves, but not so with mothers? The courts have broken me and left me feeling worthless. All I know is that im a damn good Dad and my son has lost his primary carer. and for Gods sake he is screaming out to see me, but they wont let him. Why the hell do I think that the courts are evil Natasha? I really dont want to think this way, but i do.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi Paul, thanks, that’s kind of you. I do see the struggle, but I also see other struggles inside the system, too. When I went through my own divorce in the courts, I thought that the way our family was treated was uniform across the board. I had the inverse experience to you, and so I thought mothers were under valued and ignored. But I realised working with other families that the system is not uniform in anything it does, except for making most of what it does up, as it goes along. It might seem odd to you, but I have just as many mums as I do dads saying they feel ignored and badly treated. The levels of discernment in the system are generally very poor, even at the top and sometimes when you come across a competent professional you find out their hands are tied because process is so basic.
So, I have to approach the problems in line with what I’m allowed to see. And by that token, I think the system needs a much deeper overhaul than a presumption chucked in to existing legislation. The Children Act is actually rather elegant; it’s not perfect mind you, but if it were allowed to do its thing, it would be rather efficient.
And I’m sorry to hear about your son. Don’t get me started on the voice of the child issue. There’s a lot of work to be done.
LikeLike
StuG said:
StuG
LikeLike
StuG said:
Of all the most pathetic of arguments against the principal that children should have access to both parents is that of disallowing it on the grounds that the Establishment has not yet cared to define the parameters of shared care. Forty years of dogma proves that the Establishment will fight and obstruct any progress in this field and frankly, they do not need to be assisted by more insane arguments cogitated during and brought back from some tangent mental trip. Yes, the lack of parameters will most probably cause confusion, as it did in Australia but over there they ironed it out and kids are far better off there than when the Aussies used the same useless model as the ‘mother country.’ Natascha, this called progression….you allow a bit, see the problems associated with that move and address them, and move over another hurdle. The most sensible thing would be to make the big leap; do it all in one go and spend two years ironing out the perceived problems, if they even happen at all. The fact that there is a lack of support for laws on the ground does not mean we stop introducing better law; it means we start locking up those who are not doing their jobs.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi Stu, it wouldn’t hurt to read a little more carefully… I did not suggest that the presumption shouldn’t go forward because of lack of definition. I suggested that much of the discussion at the moment is nothing more than speculation because we don’t know how the government will define ‘the involvement of both parents’.
I welcome others’ thoughts on this blog, but really Stu, if you can’t make your points without being polite, I will have to exclude your comments.
Shared parenting legislation in Australia has caused a lot of problems. I don’t think I need to cite all the research but I will if people aren’t familiar with it. It’s one thing to take a leap when the road is clear, it’s quite another to do when it is littered with the bodies of children and their shattered innocence.
LikeLike
quantumvaleat said:
Natasha, I for one would be very grateful if you would cite this research, it would be very helpful.
Thanks
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Dear QV, could you indicate which research, exactly? There’s been much discussion on this post and it would help to clarify.
LikeLike
quantumvaleat said:
The research you are using to claim that shared parenting in Australia has caused problems
Thanks
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi QV, sure, this website is a good place to start for this kind of research – if you scroll down, you’ll see there’s quite a lot of stuff there. There’s a great deal more; if you google shared parenting research you should find a lot of information. I hope that helps.
LikeLike
quantumvaleat said:
Thanks!
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Pleasure 🙂
LikeLike
forcedadoption said:
There can never be any justification for preventing children from communicating by phone or email or skype with either parent.Unfortunately this is something that our family judges just love to do !
LikeLike
StuG said:
reminds me of Lord Justice Wall’s shallow intellect when manufacturing his @making Contact Work’ paper in 2003……conclusion went something like…”yes we can see that a presumption of shared care would be in the interests of most children, but we don’t see how it could work in efficacy….”
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Stu, I don’t mind you calling me an idiot, but I’m going to disallow your comments.
LikeLike
forcedadoption said:
Punishment without crime ! Any sane parents who have not committed a crime against the other parent or any child should have at least some access to their own children.Any judge who forbids such parents any access or communication at all ,commits a crime against humanity and should be locked up for a very long time !
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Thank you for all your thoughts, Forced Adoption.
LikeLike
exInjuria said:
I’m not entirely convinced that a presumption is the way to go – for the simple reason that bolting yet another modification onto a dysfunctional system is not the right way forward. However, one has to look at the experience of other jurisdictions and accept that it has been successful. It may well be a sensible measure until a more widespread reform can be enacted.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Dear Ex Injuria,
Thank you for your comment. I think the issue of success is a contentious one.
LikeLike
exInjuria said:
Are any of these issues not contentious? 😉
LikeLike
Natasha said:
🙂
LikeLike
towardchange said:
Reblogged this on Parents Rights Blog.
LikeLike
Kingsley Miller said:
All, I thought towardchange might be interested in new research from Australia which shows how families are changing to adapt to Shared Parenting legislation. Many thanks, kip NEW Australian research on post separation parenting arrangements
Led by Dr Bruce Smyth of the ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences the study found that modern parenting schedules post-divorce show a greater sharing of parental responsibilities and richer paternal involvement than previously evident.kip
http://cass.anu.edu.au/story/diverse-post-divorce-parenting-arrangements-increase
LikeLike
Fiona said:
I agree with Karen Woodall when she said a presumption of shared parenting is a red herring. A change in legislation will not bring about a change of culture. Parental Responsibility means parents already have equal responsibility and rights to carry out those responsibilities and there is no reason why PR can’t reflect changes in society.
When Australia changed the law in 2006 it was a programme of information, education and support for separating parents that brought about a change in culture.
LikeLike
Kingsley Miller said:
Fiona, Are you saying that Karen Woodall is against Shared Parenting legislation? If so please say so or let her make her own comments. kip
LikeLike
Fiona said:
Kip, I wasn’t implying Karen was against shared parenting but she does make it quite clear in her blog she considers the word “presumption” a red herring.
“presumption without reform will change nothing at all, I do not agree that presumption of shared care in law will lead to all the other things that you think it will, it won’t. The only way forward is to rebuild it all and when we do we will have presumption of shared parenting in law but we wont need it because everything and everyone will behave that way anyway”
http://karenwoodall.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/taking-the-longer-view-an-occasional-observation-from-the-field-of-family-separation/
LikeLike
Kingsley Miller said:
Fiona, I think you should leave others to speak for themselves. kip
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Kip, just for future reference, posters are entitled to quote organisations or those who head them up. In fact, posters may quote whomever they wish.
LikeLike
Kingsley Miller said:
Fiona, Your reply is Double Dutch. kip
LikeLike
Fiona said:
Kip, Thank you. So much for rational debate! You are entitled to your opinion. I’m sorry you don’t get it.
LikeLike
Kingsley Miller said:
All, I have also taken a look at the list kindly provided by Natasha about the Shared Parenting problems experienced in Australia. The first thing is to say is the LINK directs you to the National Council for Children Post-Separation (NCCPS) website. On White Ribbon Day 25 November 2009, The National Council for Children Post-Separation (NCCPS) called on the Family Court of Australia (FCA) to recognize that ‘Violence against women frequently involves violence against their children’. It is not independent nor objective. For example the LINK includes a list of ‘PAPERS ON HOW SHARED CARE DOESN’T WORK AND WHY’. I picked a paper at random ‘In the Best Interests of the Children: A Perspective of the 2006 Amendments to the FLA by the Hon. John Faulks, Deputy Chief Justice of the FCA’. As far as I can work out the reason cited by the paper for Shared Parenting changes not working is that the principle of the welfare of the child still remains paramount. (Perhaps I am not reading this correctly). I do not think it is anti Shared Parenting legislation.
I also need to make the following points clear;
(1) Nobody ever said that Shared Parenting legislation is a panacea for all the failings of UK family proceedings..(As soon as you claim that Shared Parenting legislation is a one size fits all solution opponents will pick on any little fault).
(2) Shared Parenting legislation has never claimed to be able to deal with ‘high conflict’ families. (High conflict means families with proven examples of domestic violence not simply going to court to obtain a section 8 order).
(3) Shared Parenting legislation can cope with the majority of low level conflicts and is shown to encourage greater parental cooperation and involvement.
(4) Tragically there will always be deaths, children and parents, arising from contact disputes. Research shows no system (none) can predict how and when these incidents will occur but it is misleading and disingenuous to suggest that Shared Parenting legislation has increased the incidence of domestic violence.
Another point to make about the The National Council for Children Post-Separation (NCCPS) is that it favours authors such as Dr Michael Flood. His article in Violence Against Women (16(3) 328–347) called ‘Fathers’ Rights and the Defense of Paternal Authority in Australia’ describes how Fathers’ Rights groups have ‘Attempted to discredit female victims of violence, to wind back the legal protections available to victims and the sanctions imposed on perpetrators, and to undermine services for the victims of men’s violence’. This description, I think, is indicative. I hope this is helpful. kip
LikeLike
Kingsley Miller said:
Natashsa, Are you claiming that The National Council for Children Post-Separation (NCCPS) is an independent and objective authority similar to the claims made for the Nuffield Foundation? Do you see them as roughly similar? kip
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Kip, a poster asked me for research on shared parenting legislation which expressed the view that it was not effective. If you scroll down you will note that this research is from an array of varied sources.
LikeLike
Kingsley Miller said:
Natashsa or Natasha PS Is there no edit button?
LikeLike
Natasha said:
I’m assuming you mean an edit button on the posting box. Off hand I can’t remember if there is one for posters but there is of course an editing facility on the dashboard for blog owners.
LikeLike
Kingsley Miller said:
Natasha, You have used The National Council for Children Post-Separation (NCCPS) web page as a ‘good starting point’. But they are not objective and the ‘array of varied sources’ is unreliable as I show in the above post.(I refer to the EDIT button because I have spelled your name incorrectly). kip
LikeLike
Natasha said:
A good starting point for links to research. I made no judgement call on the NCCPS itself. I would need to research further, but from the little I have read about them, I think they’re rather comprehensive.
LikeLike
Kingsley Miller said:
Natasha, They are a feminist group, kip (Please refer to my earlier posting)
LikeLike
Natasha said:
That doesn’t make them wrong, or incapable of procuring viable research. We will disagree on the viability issue, but for me at least the debate is much simpler. Shared parenting is not for everyone and is not in every child’s best interests. Ergo, it should not be a universally applicable presumption.
LikeLike
Kingsley Miller said:
Natasha, The link you gave to a poster was to NCCPS which is a feminist group posing as an objective authority. They are not the same as the NSPCC. The NCCPS sources are unreliable. (See my earlier posting) I hope this is helpful to yourself and the poster. kip
LikeLike
Natasha said:
I don’t recall confusing the two.
LikeLike
Rob said:
One of the issues that I see with the court systems (at least in CA) is that the courts find it ok for the parent opposing contact with the father can use therapists to manipulate time and or contact with the child whether there has been a crime or harm commited against the child or not. This sets the stage for a child to grow up without one of their parents. The CSS claims to be in existence to foster more contact between a child and the non custodial parent. The courts work against it…in the mean time, attorneys, therapists and the system reap the benefits of money that could have otherwise been used on the child for the CHILDS BEST INTEREST!!!Don’t get me started on these feminist groups!!!
LikeLike
Emma said:
I believe shared parenting is and always has been around, my mum and dad ‘shared’ parenting, why should it be any different for children from broken homes? The most harm that comes to a child is the venom that comes out of the patent with cares mouth about the absent parent, and if the non residential parent is not allowed equal parenting then why the hell should they be chased to pay for these children that they are either not allowed to see or ate limited to the involvement?
LikeLike
Kingsley Miller said:
Emma, Well said! kip
Telegraph article – Divorcing parents turn to ‘brainwashing’ children in custody battles
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/divorce/9699890/Divorcing-parents-turn-to-brainwashing-children-in-custody-battles.html
LikeLike
exInjuria said:
I, too, have looked at the ‘research’ to which Natasha directed Quantumvaleat and, of course, it is nothing of the sort. The article makes no citations for the particular claims it makes and the links provided are to a ragbag collection of powerpoint presentations, non-academic articles, etc. Many of the links are broken.
Anyone like QV, Kip (happy birthday), or Stu is able to point you to a large range of material showing that court-ordered shared parenting can be very successful. The objections raised to it are limited and familiar, and have all been dealt with many times. Most are based on misapprehensions and false methodologies.
As Kip says, no one pretends that shared parenting is a panacea in all cases, but that is why campaigners call for a REBUTTABLE presumption. All they ask is that a court would look at cases from the starting point that shared parenting is the best solution for families rather than from the current starting point of ‘primary carer’ plus occasional visitor.
To use Karen Woodall to bolster a position against shared parenting is a mistake – Karen is one of the fiercest proponents of the necessity of allowing children to form and maintain relationships with both of their parents; she constantly speaks out against a legislature which regards fathers as optional and disposable. Her comment that a presumption is a red herring must be seen in context: she advocates the complete reform of family law, not just the crude addition of yet another amendment to the Children Act.
LikeLike
pauldmanning said:
Exinjuria. I have to say that your comment hits the nail on the head, can’t agree more. Fathers just want a presumption as a starting position, all the details as to time sharing can be agreed later between parties.. I can’t see what all the fuss is about! Not that im saying its a magic bullet, but at least its a start in the right direction. Just to many fathers out on a limb under the present policy, I know, im none of em! Well said Exin.
LikeLike
forcedadoptionan josephs said:
All the previous comments do not address the more serious issue; not when parents share but when one parent is deprived of contact 100%;Punishment without crime is wicked and too many parents are obliged to ask my help because although theyare sane and have committed no crime they have been judicially deprived of all contact (face to face, by email, or phone) with their own children for an indefinite period.
LikeLike
kipmiller said:
forcedadoption, I hope I do not undermine your feelings but there are ‘bad’ people everywhere. Hopefully Shared Parenting legislation will make it a little more difficult for the ‘bad’ people. kip (Thank you Nick for remembering my birthday. I will pick up the card / present / money / all of the above, on Wednesday, if you can make it!), kip
LikeLike
forcedadoptionan josephs said:
“Bad People” commit crimes and all I said and still say was that sane parents who have no criminal record at all should never never be deprived 100% of contact with their children nor jailed if they do make contact.
LikeLike
Eric T. said:
There will be no real change without a change in law, a presumption of shared parenting. With a change in law then the rest of it can be attacked and changed. No law change, no movement.
There are those around who will denigrate a change in law to shared parenting knowing that if it comes in then the rest of the discrimination will come down eventually, they don’t particularly want that. It is pie in the sky thinking to believe things will just change by themselves, it needs legislation.
Karen Woodall is against a presumption of shared parenting in law, she has stated that a number of times on her blog. Of course if shared parenting in law happened then services like Karen’s would not have so many desperate fathers bashing at their doors as they are now. It would mean business’s like hers having less funding from the government. This may explain her perverse stance against shared parenting in law.
LikeLike
pauldmanning said:
Eric, with respect I think this is rather a harsh comment with regard to Karen’s position on the issue. The idea that such a caring person as karen is only interested in her purse is not true at all. I always read her blog, and to take her out of context, as you have, is unfair. She feels that a presumption of shared parenting is not the entire answer, but that even more is needed than that. And that is the total overhaul of the whole court system, is what she is after. Because someone is against a particular initiative does not mean that they dont have higher ambitions that exceed the limitatons of the initiative in question. However, I do agree with you that we need this scrap of law bringing in to begin with, its a start at least, but not the whole answer to our problems.
LikeLike
Eric T. said:
Shared Parenting in Australia has been a “substantial success”,
The most comprehensive evaluation has shown this.was the “overall finding”.
This is from an Australian Government commissioned report, AIFS Australian Institute of Family Studies http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fle/evaluationreport.pdf
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Thank you for your comments. I’m assuming you’ve read the report in its entirety. If so, you will have noted that shared parenting does not refer exclusively to a 50/50 time share arrangement. The report also does not say that shared parenting legislation has been a success – what it does say, is that, and I quote “The evaluation evidence is that the 2006 reforms to the family law system have had a positive impact in some areas and have had a less positive impact in others”. (E4) This report is also not just about shared parenting, but reforms in family law across the board.
More from this report:
“This evaluation has highlighted the complex and varied issues faced by separating parents and
their children and the importance of having a range of services that can effectively respond.
This requires a family law system that operates in a coordinated, timely and child-focused
manner. Ultimately, while there are many perspectives within the family law system and, many
conflicting needs, it is important to maintain the primacy of focusing on the best interests of
children and protecting all family members from harm”. [Exec Summary E5)
The report also goes on to observe:
“Those [children] who began by living mostly or entirely with their father when their parents separated
tended to move to either an equal care-time arrangement or to living mostly or entirely with
their mother….In short, of the four care-time arrangements examined here, spending most nights with the
mother appeared to be the most stable arrangement” (p.127)
And finally, further evidence that the evidence on the efficacy of a presumption is unknown:
“A key question, then, is whether there has been any detectable shift post-reform in the proportion of fathers who are involved in their children’s lives after parental separation. This question
is by no means easy to answer, given that there was already pre-reform evidence that paternal
involvement after parental separation was increasing” (P.128)
I could go on, however it’s disappointing to note that many of the posters on this discussion do not actually read the material they quote. I have not read this report in full myself, however we only needed to do a quick skim to see that it was a great deal more nuanced than is being suggested.
A lot of the so-called pro shared parenting research that’s being cited in this discussion is clearly not as simplistic as it’s being made out to be.
Nevertheless, regardless of what this report says, the key issue remains that not every child will want to live two lives, one with each parent. Some will wish to spend more time with mum and some may wish to spend more time with dad. The presumption in Australia clearly has left a lot of fathers disappointed (please read the report, it makes that clear). And the fact remains that it will only serve to restrict the Paramountcy Principle.
It would be lovely if posters also explained what they meant when talking about shared parenting (i.e. shared care, which is defined as 50/50 in political circles, or just contact with both parents in its many varied forms). Thank you…..
LikeLike
karenwoodall said:
Eric T, all. Why bother arguing over the word presumption. Lets just get out there and do it differently. It won’t pay us much (Eric T – don’t take other people’s word’s as the gospel, this job pays less than it should when you only the therapist, I’d b better off buying myself an icecream van) but we will be getting the services out there to those who need them. Kip, you know me well. You use my words in your challenge to the Nuffield Foundation, Fiona quotes them Verbatim, they are not gobbledygook, they are the future (in my humble view). Presumption, no presumption, its not the point, the point is that when this godforsaken country is no longer ruled by those who would divide two loving parents into one good caring parent and one bad non resident parent (and I am not talking political parties here but family support services) when that day dawns, then you will find that no-one will need presumption because we will all be doing it anyway. At the moment, in the current culture, you can have presumption to your back teeth and all it will take is an allegation of DV or sexual abuse or anything else you can think of to get the status quo right back to where it is now. Eric T – don’t try to put me on one side of the presumption fence that you continue to argue about and everyone else on the other. Just walk round it, like others and do something different. And can I point out (again humbly) it was not presumption that brought about the generational shift towards greater involvement by fathers in children’s lives, it was the on the ground services that drove through the cultural change that supported it) read the evaluation and find out all about it.
LikeLike
Eric T. said:
Natasha, of course there will be a “less positive” aspect in some areas and a “more positive” in others – However the reforms were a “substantial success” as it says in the end.
As for 50/50 (equal parenting) well that is a red herring, nobody in government is talking about 50/50 they are talking about shared parenting which is something different and could be in some cases 50/50 depending on the individual circumstances of a separated family..
It would be great to have everything we want now put in place but we have to ‘start’ with shared parenting in law, then the world of discrimination against fathers can be fought from that starting point.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Eric, you miss the point. This research focuses on a number of reforms inside the Australian family justice system, not just the presumption of shared parenting and its efficacy (which the report makes clear it cannot assess). The success therefore, refers to broader changes in the system.
Would you mind confirming if you’ve read this report?
LikeLike
Eric T. said:
Karen,
sorry that does not wash, many of us are skint but you have a business which is funded by the government and you have private clients (mainly fathers) who are driven by the present discrimination and bias into your business.
A presumption of shared parenting in law would mean less or no funding for you and less desperate fathers and mothers crossing your office doors.
It can only be this that stops you supporting a presumption of shared parenting in law, if you genuinely believe in shared parenting as you seem to allude.
Without legislation all we will see is minor tinkering at the edges with the few people you help, while hundreds and thousands and perhaps millions of children lose a relationship with one of their parents.
In Australia it was the clear message from Government to the public that fathers were important to children by the introduction of new laws ‘presumption of shared parenting’ that brought about the sea change and drove the support services to consider fathers in their plans.
Legislation forced the authorities and services to make the changes that help children and fathers, this is an on-going process in Australia but at least it has started in 2006 on a whole country wide basis.
What you describe is a paltry pittance of change in comparison, do you really think the bulk of courts, social services, CAFCASS etc. will just change by osmosis, sorry pull the other one.
LikeLike
Eric T. said:
Natasha, I have read the report thoroughly and agree there were other reforms put in place.
However, the catalyst was the legislative change towards shared parenting and the other services were formed around that primary and massive message given out by the Australian government.
The same needs to happen here, the catalyst being a change in the laws and a message sent out to everybody in England & Wales that fathers are important to children and the government have made laws to reinforce this message as they did in Australia.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
The report does not say that the catalyst was legislative change towards shared parenting. On the contrary, it makes the point that much was being implemented beforehand, like on the ground services.
LikeLike
Eric T. said:
Natasha, I agree it does not say it was the catalyst but I would say the ground services were aware of the upcoming change in law well before it happened and were formed to support it.
Imho the legislation regarding shared parenting was the primary catalyst. I understand your view however.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
And I understand yours. Still, the report makes the point, with clarity, that a presumption of shared parenting has not been proven to be a success.
LikeLike
Kingsley Miller said:
Natasha, I think most of us are saying that in general Shared Parenting legislation has been a success in Australia. The reason you don’t believe what you are being told is because the Norgrove Report said so and the UK media accepted his statements at face value. But even at the time of the Nuffield Report beforehand I complained to the Charity Commission because I knew that the reforms were working well. I would really have to be experiencing some sort of mental breakdown to come up with this analysis. You have one of the biggest charities saying Shared Parenting legislation is not working on the basis of evidence from Australia and some nutter (me) saying the opposite is true. As you have pointed out it is not working in all areas, for example high conflict families, but these cases are the exception rather than the rule. (Eric T if you are on faceBOOK please look me up and you can find details of my challenge against the Nuffield Foundation in the High Court next week). kip
PS I have just put together my Christmas video. Please have a look and let me know what you think!
VIDEO – Be Good (Lion’s Song) Gregory Porter – Christmas 2012
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi Kip, it wouldn’t matter if an entire army were to suggest the legislation has been a success – the report shows very clearly such success has not been quantified. And the high risk families you mention may only be a small minority in relative terms, but in a system which is required to cater to all family situations it’s not good enough to suggest that a measure be introduced if it’s actually going to harm a demographic.
On the ground services can work with families who may be suited to shared parenting, but they are catering for a very specific crowd, which also happens to be limited in numbers. A family justice system has to work with many different family units, so all measures must be able to move fluidly to suit each family. That’s why I feel, amongst other reasons, that legislation in this area is not the way forward. I also think it contravenes the Paramountcy Principle.
The Norgrove Report is very narrow in scope and I would have liked it to have had a much broader remit, but I agree with a lot of the content (I’ve written on the report in the past so I won’t bore you with my thoughts on that here).
Thanks for the video Kip; it’s cute. Interesting to note that the child is the only one with some perspective in it 🙂
PS Thank you for the introduction to Gregory Porter. Fine musician.
LikeLike
pauldmanning said:
What a charming but melancholic piece of music Kip, love the sax and the singers husky voice, makes a fathers point well I think. And to make my own point I wish for Christmas a return to the things I describe here that I used to do with my son ,but now lost and miss so much in my life… a fathers story…
….I truly believe that parental alienation, PA, can be inflicted upon a child. My son has been put through this process. Four years ago my son was screaming out to see more of me, on contact he would ask to stay longer to play or make his usual pizza together with me. After some time I asked him why he wasn’t writing like he used to, he answered “Mom won’t let me”, this is when I knew things were going terribly wrong.
After attending 30 court hearings taking 4 years the Cafcass Child Guardian visited with him, and to my astonishment he told her that he was no longer sure that he wanted to see me. I know he has a new dad now and my ex is just not prepared to put up with me in her life or our sons. She put on her parts to garner the courts sympathy and said she thought the process had gone on for long enough and it was causing strain on her and on our son, so she claimed. The judge agreed and so I was put out of my sons life for another 2 years until I can apply again to court. Unfortunately I know by then that he will have had 6 years to be alienated further from me.
And all this from me being his main carer at home from him being a baby, me his play mate and security, me his cook and homework pal. All this from a child I would put to bed and read stories to. All this from taking him to school and picking him up and having him jump into my arms when we met, hugging me till it hurt. We were the best of pals, we were as close as a son and a father could be, closer than that even.
Some cruel people have accused me of having an idealized view of my relationship with my son, guess who? Yes it was Cafcass, who couldn’t see my deep love and care for him. All they could see was my anger and frustration at being parted from the most important thing in my life, my dear son. I lost my son, not because I was a bad father or that I ever hurt him, that’s just not possible, no, it was because I eventually got angry after 4 years of being told I was no good and had the potential to emotionally hurt him… The ‘crystal ball effect’ I like to call it.
There was no other human being closer to me than my son, there was no way I could have cared about him more. There was no way I could have given him more of my love or my time. When he would come home he would want to play marbles or sword fights, even though I was tired my desire was to make him smile and so I was glad to get up and play. Even though I felt silly running around in the park with my arms stuck out pretending to be a Spitfire, and everybody thinking I was crazy, I didn’t care, I did it because I just loved being with my son and playing his imaginary games. When the weekend would come we would go for walks and I’d show him how to identify the different trees and we would stop and listen to the birds, he loved it. I taught him to love and how to be strong, I taught him to be kind and to smile, why? Because he made me happy and I know I made him happy too, he learnt from me and I learnt from his great big smiling heart, how that was so good for us both!
As I write this I am crying, I can’t help the tears falling. I have had my heart ripped out of me and I have to live with it, but I can’t manage it, I just can’t! If the courts knew what was happening to me and to many fathers out there they would stop our suffering and help us. I hope other fathers can identify with what I am saying here, because it’s the truth. But telling you the truth is not going to stop MY pain or yours. How I miss my pal, my son. God help me and God bless my treasure. I love him so very much. Will I ever see him again? To have these things back in my life that I describe here is my dearest wish, I can hope I guess, its all I have now. Happy Christmas to you all, if thats possibe without the ones you love?
LikeLike
karenwoodall said:
Eric T – whatever you like to call yourself these days…
I work for a Charity which has worked with over 4,000 front line workers this year, training them to understand and utilise equalities based understanding of family separation so that fathers get the services that they need. We have just completed a three year complaint process against a Local Authority resulting in gender equality in meeting the needs of separated families is now set at the heart of their service delivery. Since 2008 we have trained four new national services in England and Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure that fathers get the support that they need too, we have five centres across England and we deal with over 200 cases per month (that’s PER MONTH, not year), where families are not able to see a child for one reason or another. And that’s with mothers not only fathers.
Your analysis is lazy though I long ago got over being offended by narrow minds that run around trying to belittle other people’s work by carping from the sidelines without doing a darned thing different.
If you read the report, you would see that it was the on the ground services that drove the cultural change through and if you talked to Professor Parkinson you would hear direct from the man himself that it was the support services that made the biggest difference.
But I guess none of that matters, so long as you have your holy grail. And before you start your game of ping pong again, that’s my last word on the matter, I have better things to do and bigger fish to fry than you.
LikeLike
Eric T. said:
Karen, yes we have heard it all before about the government funded charity owned/managed by you picking up the pieces from wrecked lives after the damage has been done, too late and not enough I’m afraid.
So why does any of what you say stop you supporting a Presumption of Shared Parenting in Law?
Would it make things worse for fathers and children? No!
Please carry on with your approach, I support you whole heartedly but why can’t you also say the very simple words ‘I support a presumption of shared parenting in law’ and support the mass of fathers and children here?
Why is it so difficult for you to say unless you simply do not believe in anything else apart from what you do working, only your (in reality minimal impact efforts) are worthwhile it seems.
Sorry that is wrong and narrow minded to the extreme, millions of children in the UK need a real change in law, not a bunch of goody half-trained counsellors trying their best to pick up the pieces after the massive damage has been done. We need to stop the damage to the mass of children hit by separation/divorce before it impacts them, by the government sending out a message in law.
If you want to quote Professor Parkinson you might note that he was positive about a change in law here and was supportive of the law changes in Australia, why can’t you do the same?
“One of the beneficial aspects of the Australian legislation is that the emphasis which is given to the involvement of both parents in children’s lives even. after relationship
breakdown is strongly in accord with community values.” – Professor Parkinson
“there are general principles that can be articulated. Appropriately framed guidance in legislation may help parents to resolve post-separation parenting arrangements more easily by establishing principles and norms which can help shape the way people view.what it means for parents to live apart.” – Professor Parkinson
“Legislative reform in Britain could begin to articulate a different conceptualisation of the relationship between courts and the wider community in terms of assisting parents to develop parenting plans that accord with legislatively declared principles and objectives.” – Professor Parkinson
LikeLike
Eric T. said:
Thanks Kip, will do, enjoyed your video, love the song.
LikeLike
Eric T. said:
Natasha, the paramountcy principle is twisted day in day out in the courts of this land in Private Family Law to minimise/stop contact with fathers for months and years.
It has been perverted to mean that allegations by a mother lead immediately to little or no contact for substantial periods whilst allegations by a father are seen as reasons to limit the father’s involvement in children’s lives as he is simply undermining mother, in a deviation of the paramountcy principle.
Children up and down the country are subject to ongoing emotionally, neglect and sometimes physically abuse by primary carers because the courts and support services only see the paramountcy principle is only relevant to mothers view of children’s needs in Private Family Law.
Children are left in the care of mothers who make false allegations, destroying peoples lives including their own children, simply because they are mothers.
The paramountcy principle as the ‘best interests’ mantra is used to support the on-going abuse of children because one parent (mothers) are considered better than the other parent in reality.
The only way to start to change this nationally is to have a presumption of shared parenting, there is a real incentive then for both parents and a knowledge of what is expected throughout the land. Parents are not then discriminated because of their gender (or not as much). A starting point but an important starting point.
P.S. I say mothers because 92% of children in single parent families are brought up by mothers but if fathers were in the position of mothers they would similarly abuse the control given to them over children. Which is why it is imperative to have a message in law that emphasises to all involved that both parents are equal and have caring and financial responsibilities for their children.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi Eric, the twisting you mention, when it occurs, is as a result of human beings inside the system – not the absence or presence of law. I don’t think I have anything else to add at this point, as I think we may just start to go round in circles.
LikeLike
Eric T. said:
Natasha, fair point it is the human beings granted but the lack of clarity and emphasis in law does not help. Anyway think you’re right about going round in circles. best…
LikeLike
Natasha said:
And to you Eric. Thank you for chatting.
LikeLike
exInjuria said:
I can see the danger of going round in circles and getting bogged down in discussions around shared parenting presumptions. The reforms in Australia were complex, and it isn’t possible to say that the effects seen were the result of any one reform, whether the legislative changes, or the support services, or the LAT procedure, or something else.
It is also easy to get bogged down in the Australian experience and not look at other reforms elsewhere. Other jurisdictions have introduced presumptions of shared parenting of various sorts and the effects seem to have been beneficial (see Martin Halla’s study). If such a reform is on the table, it seems sensible to support it and embrace it; it isn’t a panacea, it isn’t the wholesale legislative and cultural change we all agree is needed eventually, but it may be a step on that path, and it’s a huge advance on the current presumption of sole maternal custody. It needs to be accompanied, however, by changes in the language – and the removal of prejudicial terms like contact and residence – and by a rejection of the primary carer ideology.
LikeLike
karenwoodall said:
It also needs to be accompanied by a change in the gate-way mechanism of Child Benefit, it doesn’t matter how many shared parenting arrangements come in on the back of a change to the children act, with the CB gateway still in place, one parent will still be the PWC and the other will still be the NRP and all family services currently, are configured around support to the PWC (apart from FNF and other services specifically for the NRP). The parent with the power in this world remains the PWC.
You only need to go into the early years sector to see how insidious this is. Early years workers know that fathers are important but they are regularly in touch with the PWC (who by design, not accident, is the mother in the overwhelming majority of cases). Therefore, the most important parent in a child’s life is, by default, the mother, and in the early years sector in the UK, this is reflected by the almost 100% employment of female early years workers. Children may grow from 0- 12 now without ever encountering a man in their lives, this is the other part of the architechture which must change.
It is, in my view, naive to pin all hopes on the word ‘presumption’ and the change in the children act is nothing like a ‘presumption’ of anything. It is wooly, it says nothing other than what is already said. Until or unless, someone somewhere is brave enough to add the words ‘this is what constitutes a meaningful relationship’ and gets those details down on paper as they are in the EI then all that will be delivered is more conflict and more arguments in court. We hope to have the evidence of the power of EI sometime early in 2015, this is the point at which we can say that presuming that a child will spend xxxx amount of time with a parent and that both parents will maintain involvement in all of the significant things that contribute to bring that child up, is what will make the difference. And then it will be evidence based, not just held up as the holy grail.
The final thing that is essential to consider is the impact and influence of the DV lobby. I am just getting to grips with the way in which this keeps everything else in a place of terrorised stasis. I saw it again this week in Scotland. Anti father, Anti transparency, widespread indoctrination of mothers to reframe their relationship in the understanding that they have been abused. One mother being told by a Women’s Aid worker that if she allowed her child to see its father she would report her to Social Services. No evidence of wrong doing, child wanted to her father, women’s aid worker’s ideology fixed and determined – and extraordinarily powerful. Do not underestimate it, this lobby and its influence have more money and more power than any other lobby – even the single parent lobby does not come close.
This is the multi pronged work that we, as people who believe in equalities based work with families and shared parenting which is sustainable over a child’s lifetime, must get ready to tackle. Gazing in one tiny direction, believing that one word will bring the change that is needed is a waste of time, a waste of energy and all the while the rest of the family separation field is busy doing its thing without challenge.
LikeLike
Eric T. said:
Karen, please read what people on here have said, nobody has said that a presumption of shared parenting in law is the whole answer. So please try to understand that.
Why won’t you support shared parenting in law? (Even if it only has a minimal impact as you say)
Why don’t you support Professor Parkinson who is positive about shared parenting legislation reforms? Why do you only support the parts of what he says that mean more money to your business and an expansion of your workload of government and more private money from desperate dads being done down by the present family law system?
We have a presumption of shared parenting in sight but your actions and others like you who dismiss it for no good reason may even undermine this process and it could fall by the wayside. Why on earth are you willing to let that happen and not stand by those calling for a change in the law with an emphasis and clarity on shared parenting, involving both parents?
You talk about child benefit being scrapped, are you on cloud cuckoo land, it’s not going to happen while the law remains the same on separation/divorce regarding children. It will only be a presumption in law on shared parenting that will allow fathers and their supporters to challenge the inequity of child benefit distribution and the other benefits and allowances that flow from it.
The support to the PWC will continue without a change of legislation towards shared parenting as there is no reason for the authorities to look at this. No law, no pressure from any area that has clout. Law has clout.
EI has been bandied around for 20 years or so and no-one in government with any weight seriously considers it has a prayer and even in your own ridiculously optimistic scenario, you will only have some ‘evidence’ of its benefit in 2015, do you realise how useful that will be, no use. Yet we have the opportunity of shared parenting in legislation very soon, why wouldn’t you back that while also pushing your EI fantasy as well?
We know about the power of DV lobbies and single parent lobbies, so what? If there is a law saying a presumption of shared parenting then they can then be attacked with the legitimacy of legislation and supporting resources. They have to be attacked via the law as well as by other methods. Again not a good reason not to support shared parenting in law is it?
Yes it is a multi prong approach but why won’t you give a presumption of shared parenting in law your support? It is one of the approaches surely, or don’t you believe even this?
Stopping the discrimination against fathers and their children on a national scale means new laws including shared parenting laws.
Your stance against/dismissive of shared parenting laws hurts fathers and children because it undermines the efforts of those outside of government and those within who are trying to bring about change. As you talk about fathers all the time publicly and at public meetings, if you cannot bring yourself to support shared parenting laws then it hurts the message of all those who are fighting for a real change in law and a real beginning to a change in the environment for fathers and children.
No law change, no real change. Legislation shifts peoples attitudes and allows challenges to discriminatory practices in the judiciary, support services and other authorities.
LikeLike
forcedadoption said:
I would prefer a very very strong presumption of at least some “face to face contact” with their children for both parents.The only exception could be made if a parent has committed a serious crime against their child or any other children.
“Shared parenting ” is such a vague term that various contributors to this blog write acres of scribblings interpreting it in their various different ways.This shows that either it won’t happen or even if it does happen nobody in practice will be able to agree on its interpretation.
Face to face contact is a clear statement so that the only questions to be resolved would be “where?”,”supervised or not?” and “how often?”
Why run before we have learned to walk?
LikeLike
Kingsley Miller said:
‘Only ourselves to blame’
All, I am sorry to say I think the Coalition Government stance on Shared Parenting legislation, owes more to the need for votes for a second term, than it does the welfare of children.
If the Coalition Government ends, so will any hope for Shared Parenting legislation. I therefore think we have a relative short window of opportunity to make as much progress as possible. The groups traditionally opposed to fathers, such as the Law Society, are at their weakest and I think it is a terrible shame to see all the in-fighting between those supposedly interested in a greater involvement of fathers in the upbringing of their children, so much so that I think we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Take for example legislation in Australia. When the evidence seemed to indicate that Shared Parenting legislation was a failure, those in power rushed to use it at every opportunity, and still do, to undermine the rights of fathers. Now the truth is beginning to emerge, that Shared Parenting legislation in Australia is a ‘success’, nobody wants to use it as a model for progress in our own country.
It is with this in mind I refer to the article by the Australian Attorney General Nicola Roxon, ‘Protecting our children will always be at the heart of family law’, in which she explains concerns about the impact of the Howard government’s shared parenting laws. It is easy to read this article in terms of the threat to the welfare of children, for example Nicola Roxon says,
“The research clearly showed that parents were afraid of reporting family violence to the court. In particular, the “friendly parent provisions” from the 2006 reforms were causing parents to think twice before reporting family violence. Our changes have removed part of those provisions, helping to provide parents with the confidence to report family violence”.
But Nicola Roxon also adds,
“Importantly, these changes do not roll back shared-care arrangements”.
Of course opponents will not want to use the full quotation.
It is this context the paper, ‘In the Best Interests of the Children: A Perspective of the 2006 Amendments to the FLA by the Hon John Faulks, Deputy Chief Justice of the FCA, outlines how the changes in Australia have not undermined the paramountcy principle, a concern constantly repeated in this country.
It is also in this context I refer to the report ‘Diverse post-divorce parenting arrangement on the increase’, which deals with the one-size-fits-all criticism usually leveled at Shared Parenting legislation by highlighting how families in Australia are adapting to cope successfully with the reforms.
Underlying this news about the reforms in Australia is a picture of a new country that is not afraid of the future and embracing change.
Government proposals in the UK have given the imitative to those who want a change our own family law system. There are bound to be headaches along the way but if we spend too much time trying to predict potential problems the opportunity for our children will pass and we will have only ourselves to blame.
References
‘Protecting our children will always be at the heart of family law’, 3 June 2012,
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/protecting-our-children-will-always-be-at-the-heart-of-family-law-20120602-1zoxa.html#ixzz2EOx5Z2zP
Diverse post-divorce parenting arrangement on the increase, 26 November 2012
http://cass.anu.edu.au/story/diverse-post-divorce-parenting-arrangements-increase
In the Best Interests of the Children
http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/FCOA/home/about/Media/Speeches/FCOA_Best_Interests_Children
LikeLike
karenwoodall said:
In australia, where shared parenting is supported by different fiscal legislation, two separated parents are assessed for their ability to pay child maintenance. This approach, effectively dismisses the use of the Chikd Abenefit Gateway and creates two lone parent households which are each entitled to claim the benefits that go with parenting alone. Thus, we see a template for the kind of fiscal policy which will get rid of the division of parents into pwc and nrp, the core issue which lies at the heart of the conflicted positions that prevent successful shared parenting arrangments in many cases in the UK. This is, to my mind, the way in which the UK must move in order to drive through successful shared parenting arrangements that are sustainable over a child’s lifetime.
EI, the only real presumption of anything, it defines the kind of time a child will spend in each household and will, through the use of guidelines such those developed in the Midlands, ensure that the arrangements that are made for children are those which are meaningful and which will be sustained over a child’s lifetime. EI is about to be tested through a desgnated court in the coming two years with a ready made ‘hub’ which will be convened for the purpose of supporting it. It will also be evaluated, thus providing us with the evidence that will challenge the efforts by the opposition to discredit this approach. This piece of work is currently underway under the watchful eye of its originator and we be actively supporting its delivery over the next two years. It takes two years to deliver because we want empirical evidence which stands up to scrutiny.
When I last met Professor Parkinson when he and I presented together at the CARE conference in 2008, he told me that what we advocate at CSF is the very approach that made shared parenting work in the UK, community based services which are underpinned by gender mainstreaming, something which is standard n Australia.
And the DV and single parent lobby? Currently laughing all the way to the cash point.
But some can dream.
LikeLike
Kingsley Miller said:
Karen Woodall, We can all dream. Australia provides the ‘hot house’ for the development of Shared Parenting legislation. If it is okay to use Australia as an example of Shared Parenting not working, it should also be possible to use it as an example to support legislation when we now know it is working. I(f the Nuffield Foundation really believed in the welfare of children they should be investing in research projects to find out how we can learn from Australia not throwing good money after bad on worthless dalliances such as, ‘Taking a longer view of contact: Perspectives of young adults who experienced parental separation’ which studies adult recollections of childhood memories of going through contact disputes). Each approach has its own set of problems including the Early Intervention (EI) programme. Ever since I can remember EI has been used as a sop to fathers, a bit like ‘Let them eat cake’. I am a qualified teacher with an interest in the psychological and sociological development of children and I believe Shared Parenting legislation places the welfare of children first and foremost, even above fiscal considerations. The Coalition Government’s proposals are the nearest we have come to achieving Shared Parenting legislation. When the Coalition Government is gone I guarantee these proposals will go with them and the EI programme will be effectively ‘shelved’ by private interest groups and all we will be left with is our dreams. I don’t think anybody is saying the Government proposals are perfect but they give us the best shot at improving the welfare of children in the UK. kip
LikeLike
Kingsley Miller said:
All, There is a common misconception doing the rounds prompted by the Nuffield Foundation that Shared Parenting is the same as Equal Parenting. It is easy to criticise Equal Parenting legislation as impractical and unworkable. On the other hand the Australian experience has proven that Shared Parenting legislation is a success!
Maureen Freely writing in the, Guardian (‘Children first’, 27 March 2002) describes the principle of shared parenting in the following way,
“Shared parenting as practised today is a flexible concept. It can mean that all care is shared 50-50, or that children spend 80% of the time in one house and 20% in the other. Most families do the fine print by themselves. Its only when they can’t agree they end up in court. When they do, their case will be considered according to its own merits. But certain rules of thumb remain. When making their decisions, many British judges still shy away from the ideal of shared parenting as described in the Children Act and are guided by the ‘tender years doctrine’. Dr Hamish Cameron, a consultant child psychiatrist who has served as an expert witness in many cases, describes this as the belief that young children are best off with the parent with the closest resemblance to the Madonna. Where judges sees their first duty as preserving the mother-child dyad, their solution in some intractable cases will be to remove the father from the picture.”
I hope this is helpful,
kip
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%27Children+first%27%2C+27+March+2002&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
LikeLike
Eric T. said:
Karen, do you really think the coalition or any future government is going to change Child Benefit and the host of add-ons so it goes to 2 parents, ‘without’ shared parenting legislation in place? If so please point to any Hansard report or any other reputable source that shows moves in this direction?
It is a fantasy to think that it will happen without shared parenting legislation first, by focussing on something that is not even on the political horizon it affects negatively the chances of a real change in law, this is a common tactic of the detractors of real change towards shared parenting.
The change on child benefit and its use as a gateway will only come in where there is a legislative change of a presumption of shared parenting which forces other government departments such as the DWP to look at their present discriminatory system. We have to have the presumption in place to work as a catalyst for change in other areas. It is a complete nonsense to think child benefit changes will just happen because you think its a nice idea Karen, hopelessly naive or you know this already and don’t really want change except on your own narrow terms.
EI as Kinglsey says and I mentioned earlier is a sop to fathers and has been talked about for 20 odd years, it achieves nothing in reality, never has done and never will and is used by those opposed to real change to stop the movement forward in shared parenting. All you ‘may’ have after your little trial is some research that nobody in government will be at all interested in and it will produce nothing except, more delay for real change towards shared parenting.
That’s the huge real problem, it is that you attend these conferences, attend government meetings and say you know what is best for dads and children but in reality because you will not support and are against a presumption of shared parenting in law you are undermining the real efforts for change.
When people representing organisations go to these government meetings and conferences concentrating on getting as much funding as possible from the government and private sources to focus on what is good for their business/charity that’s fine but if these people also don’t support a presumption in shared parenting in legislation it is simply anti fathers & children. Undermining shared parenting laws, because it may affect negatively a business’s/charities income in the future is a travesty. This is what the lawyer organisations and others do, protect their income by saying no to change or supporting sops like EI.
You name drop Professor Parkinson but do not support him when he says the shared parenting laws in Australia were positive and would be positive in here.
As Kinglsey rightly says this governments proposals are the nearest thing to having shared parenting introduced into this country. They are a start on the road and can be used once written in law to attack other discriminatory practices.
If the detractors get their way and this presumption of shared parenting goes out of the window, then relying on a relatively few half-trained counsellors/part-time so-called front line workers and the red herring of EI will mean we are looking at another generation of waiting, and another generation of children failed before any prospect of real change.
LikeLike
karenwoodall said:
Do you know what Eric/Harry/ man who hides behind different names and is not brave enough to be honest about who he is…. I banned you from my website because you talk in ways that misrepresent who i am and I was sick of arguing with you – and therefore, as a therapist, I must question why I am wasting time arguing round in circles with a man who poses as different people on different sites and who appears to deliberately tell lies about who I am and what I do in the world.
Where on earth did I ever say I didn’t support Proff Parkinson? Where did Zi say that I do not support shared parenting? And you clearly do not understand the first thing about social policy in this country or anywhere else for that matter otherwise you would understand what I mean about fiscal policy change.
And these government meetings and conferences that i attend, I wish you would tell me where they are and when I was there and what I said, because you know more about those than I seem to.
You seem to have this idea that I matter, that someone somewhere gives a shit about my opinion, currently it seems to me, the only one who really cares what I say – is you.
So, I am going to take my husbands advice now and give it a rest because a) you clearly need to believe in your version of your world, which is fine, whatever works for you and b) you are clearly too scared to be tranparent about who you are and why you seem to spend so much of your time taking pot shots at me behind a facade.
Just try not to tell too many lies about me, I know you are safe behind your pseudonym but I wouldn’t get too cosy.
Ps: a letter, just for you going up on my blog shortly.
LikeLike
kipmiller said:
Karen, I don’t think it is fair to call Eric scared or hiding. He makes some legitimate points as I feel I did on my faceBOOK timeline. You made your reputation off the back of the criticisisms you made of the Nuffield Foundation campaign ‘Shared Parenting legislation is not in the interests of children’. As somebody who works with separated families you spoke against the injustices faced by fathers. On Wednesday I will be asking the Administrative Court to order an investigation into sexism at the Nuffield Foundation and it would be very useful to have you attend as a witness so you can repeat your complaints but I understand how difficult this maybe and I have not forced the issue. kip
LikeLike
Eric T. said:
Karen, I do not understand why you are not able to control yourself (not making threats or nasty comments) and discuss the issue of shared parenting laws etc – You have made many dismissive comments about a presumption of shared parenting on this thread. It is not only me it seems who is confused about your position on a presumption of shared parenting in law as others posts on this thread shows.
F4J asked you and your hubby many times if you supported shared parenting in law after your hubby refused to support legislation on the Voice of Russia debate you had, they got no answer except threats according to their facebook page, isn’t that right? The VoR was a radio debate about fathers and children and your hubby refused to say he supported shared parenting laws, when asked. He agreed with the family lawyer there was no need for them. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Surely you can see why it is a concern that you and your hubby are entering into debates regarding fathers and children but when asked about your positions on shared parenting legislation refuse to support it. Do you understand how this undermines those looking for change?
So you do support Professor Parkinson when he says shared parenting laws for this country would be positive, is that right?
All I am asking please on this thread is for you who write many blogs about fathers, is to be transparent about your position on a presumption of shared parenting in law.
Please would you kindly tell us if you support or do not support the proposed presumption of shared parenting in law as proposed by the government?
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Posters, once again, we would be grateful if you could keep your comments civil. We will take down potentially defamatory or threatening statements if we consider it appropriate.
LikeLike
karenwoodall said:
Kip, I cannot understand why it would be difficult, I have never complained about you using my words, many claim me for a supporter simply because of what I write, assuming that if I am for one thing I must be for all things without ever asking me. But If I felt compromised in any way by you using what I have written I would say so and if you want me there as a witness all you have to do is ask me.
Man with no name. I have absolutely no respect for a man who sits behind a pretend name flinging pots shots at me and so you just keep on doing what you are doing, it clearly makes you happy.
And I will keep on keeping on, speaking at these meetings and these conferences you are so fond of saying I attend and I will keep on saying exactly what I have been saying for the past twelve years (on and off the air).
LikeLike
BattlestarEquality said:
Hello Karen,
I’m interested in a answer if possible, seems a simple question that is being asked about the proposals from the government.
This blog is talking about ‘Shared Parenting; A Presumptuous Proposition………. A suggestion perhaps can we try and keep the discussion confined to this as well…………… It’s not everything most of us want but its what is on offer from the Coalition and that chance as Kip says will probably not occur again for decades.
Will you clarify the position of the Centre for Separated Families and whether they support a presumption of shared parenting in legislation or not?
We know it doesn’t tick all the boxes but its far better to have it than not, no brainer really or am I completely deluded.
Thank you very much.
LikeLike
exInjuria said:
Eric, you are not interested in engaging in debate with Karen or in her replies. Your comments are rude, mischievous and poorly informed. Rather than listen carefully to her position and try to understand it, you seek to bully her into accepting your own position (which is cribbed from Fathers 4 Justice anyway).
Before you can explore effective ways in which to reform the family justice system you need to understand what is wrong with the system and how it has come to be like that. Karen has written widely about these issues, and if you read what she has written you will see that her preferred solutions are consistent with her understanding of what is wrong.
It would be perverse of her, therefore, to promote solutions based on someone else’s flawed understanding of the failings of the system, and yet this is what you try to force her to do.
F4J, from whom you seem to get your facts, does not have a particularly clear grasp of this, and recently has promoted ideas which fly in the face of its own documentation. There is a great deal of muddled thinking in this area, and misguided attacks on other organisations seem to be used to divert attention away from the fact that the emperor has no clothes (I think he lost them in M&S).
LikeLike
quantumvaleat said:
Is it just me, or is anyone else fed up with the continual questioning of the position of the Centre for Separated Families/Karen Woodall? Karen has made herself perfectly clear, I just wished others would take the time to read what she has written, rather than continuing to regurgitate the unfounded and unnecessary F4J attack on her and the CSF.
This detracts from the issue of shared parenting, and serves little more than to allow bully-boy tactics to continue.
Karen and all those at the CSF deserve support for the work they do, and for the way Karen in particular explains what is wrong with the current Family Justice System, and what is required to rebuild from the ground up, rather than adding bits onto an already crumbling and weak act of legislation (CA 1989).
LikeLike
karenwoodall said:
QV and EI – thank you, its been exhausting, bewildering and frustrating – but I’m learning!! I know you too have the same dynamics to battle with, sending my support too. K
LikeLike
kipmiller said:
Natasha, I am very grateful to you for letting me participate in your discussions. I attach a link to the Skeleton Argument from the Charity Commission, involving the Nuffield Foundation, for the hearing on Wednesday, for your information. It is open to the public so everybody, including Ragnvald, is welcome to attend. Once again many thanks, Kingsley Miller kip
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151390971048203.551713.538163202&type=1&l=35053db707
LikeLike
BattlestarEquality said:
Hello exInjuria and quantumvaleat,
This is a blog about a presumption of shared parenting but we seem to have been diverted onto other things. I think it is reasonable to ask what people’s position is on a presumption of shared parenting when they partake on this blog.
I think a presumption is far better than what we have got now and although I would love a utopian world tomorrow of no discrimination against us dads it ain happening soon but a presumption is a beginning.
I have read through again the posts on here and I am not clear on the Centre of Separated Fathers position on a presumption of shared parenting at all, I must be a little dim as from what I pick up on here from the posts is that CSF are against a presumption of shared parenting………
If they are against a presumption then it surely is justified to question why they are against it, I certainly want to know and learn. I also want to know are the CSF saying it is worse for dads and kids if a presumption as proposed by the coalition comes into force, if so why…………… If its not worse I want to know why wouldnt we all back it even if it is not everything we want, its a move in the right direction at the very least.
I dont think we are going to get an answer from the CSF on here to this, its a pity but maybe you 2 guys could say what your position is on a presumption, for it; against it; for it with reservations.
This being a blog about a presumption of shared parenting in family courts, after all it would be nice to talk about it rather than all the other petty stuff.
Ta
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Dear Battlestar,
Thank you for your post. We think another good focal point might be to get people to clarify what they mean exactly by shared parenting.
There are several definitions, with the simplest being contact in varied forms with both parents, to the most political, which is an equal division of time between parents, of that child’s time.
We hope that posters will consider this aspect, as ultimately it will make the discussion more meaningful, not least of all because shared parenting is widely interpreted, and of course, has not yet been explicitly defined in the recent government proposals.
Thank you.
LikeLike
quantumvaleat said:
Shared parenting isn’t about an equal division of time, or even any division of a child’s time – it is about both parents fully sharing responsibility(and allowing the other parent full responsibility) and working together as parents. I find often that people get too hung up on the time factor, with varying percentages being banded about, as if children’s time should become an accounting spreadsheet.
My own position is very clear, and is set out in my various blog posts. The below is an excerpt from a blog I wrote last month entitled “The Emperor’s New Clothes”.
“While I support a legal presumption of shared parenting (which does not mean an equal spilt of time), I don’t think that as a stand-alone policy it will necessarily work. I believe that a wider, more holistic approach to supporting separated families post break-up is needed. In Norway, for example, where there is a legal presumption of shared parenting, there is also a compulsory national shared parenting support programme for all separating couples, called “Forever Parents”. There is [in Norway] a huge amount of community support for parents and significantly a massive amount of input to support fathers. Gender equality is at the heart of everything and there are men in childcare, men in the early years sector, men in caring roles, it seems to be generally accepted that men as well as women will care and women as well as men will work outside of the home.
Currently, in the UK, when parents are expecting a child, there is any amount of reading material available, support from Doctors, Midwives, ante-natal classes, visits to the Maternity Hospital prior to admittance, the option to have a home birth, a midwife-led birth or under the care of a Doctor, etc. But on separation there is none of that support available for parents, children or families – everyone tends to be in the position of running around in the dark with scissors and hoping that no-one gets hurt. But what if all that support and information that is available ante-natal is also available during separation and on-going afterwards? While this is what happens in Norway, I’m not sure that it would currently work in the UK (as much as I would like it to) because men are discriminated against and pushed out of society. There needs to be a huge change in cultural attitudes for such a move to work successfully. AS a society, we do need to accept that men are not just breadwinners, and women are not just baby-making and rearing machines, and that both parents are equally capable of raising happy, healthy, well-balanced children.
Courts are no place for families, they are places for criminals and those accused of criminality. In Australia, when a legal presumption of shared parental responsibility was introduced, alongside that were the introduction of the requirement of parents to attend family dispute resolution before filling out family court applications, (except where there were welfare or DV concerns), an increased emphasis on the need for both parents to remain involved in the children’s lives (inc a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility)a greater emphasis on the need to protect children from abuse and family violence and finally, legislative support for less adversarial court processes via the Less Adversarial Trial process (this is more closely directed by a Judge, unlike here,where the Judge is little more than an umpire).
So you can see, from the examples of both Norway and Australia, where is a legal presumption of shared parenting that other structures have been built to ensure that parents have the support and access to family-orientated services that they require upon family break-up. This simply isn’t the case here in the UK (and I will include Scotland in this because although mediation is the preferred option prior to court applications, it is yet to become mandatory). Simply having that legal presumption of shared parenting is not enough.
Change is long-over due, and I know that those who have campaigned for many years for this much-needed change do at times, feel despondent and as if they are banging their heads against a brick wall because it often appears that families, and children are not high on the priority list of those who do have the power to make change. Or is it perhaps, that they are simply scared of making such large and far-reaching changes?
We need to accept that when family break-up occurs, that all members of that family are considered when decisions are being made, currently it is only the child (or children) that is subject to proceedings that is considered – the impact on other children of the family (step or half siblings) are not considered, nor are the needs of the parents. I have yet to find a legal definition of what the “best interests of the children” actually means. Why should it not be “the best interests of the family” that are considered? To look so narrowly at a problem is myopic and creates far more problems than the one that is trying to be resolved.”
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Dear QV,
Shared parenting has several definitions, depending on whom is debating the issue. Thank you for clarifying yours.
LikeLike
Eric T. said:
The nasty snipes and poor little me “stop asking me questions” routine cuts no ice I’m afraid.
What matters is that we do not allow this governments proposed presumption of shared parenting in law to fall by the wayside, it is too important for the tens of thousands of children and parents who will be caught up in the family law system going forward and those millions whose individual separation/divorce schedules are based on what they perceive the courts will allow (little or nothing presently)..
Too long have those individual pet projects split the movement for shared parenting reform in law, If we are not to consign another generation of children to the appalling system in place presently, then now is the time to come together and support the governments plans for a presumption of shared parenting in law.
All the other individual pet projects can be dealt with in parallel to backing the governments plans and shaping those plans as best they can be for children and fathers.
Simply saying I don’t like them because they don’t deal explicitly with what I want is counter-productive and ultimately destructive in moving matters forward for children and parents.
LikeLike
exInjuria said:
The trouble with people like Eric and Battlestar is that they won’t be satisfied with anything other than the wholesale adoption of THEIR definition of shared parenting and support for the incorporation of that into legislation. It doesn’t matter how many times Karen clarifies her position (read her blog) or anyone else repeats and clarifies theirs, until everyone conforms to a standard view the Erics and Matt O’Connors of this world will continue to heckle and harass.
They then claim that those who don’t sign up to their very limited view are threatening to ‘split the movement’ when the reality is that it is their blinkered vision which threatens stability. Consider the long history of infighting in the fathers’ movement; it has never been between RFFJ and FNF or between the so-called splinter groups,it always involves on one side F4J because F4J is the only group which sets itself up as the only fathers’ group and tries to bully everyone else into its way of thinking (and yes, I was involved with it for 9 years or so).
It was F4J’s damaging attack on the CSF (the F stands for Families, not Fathers, by the way) which prompted me to leave. If F4J had had any sense they would have offered their support and resources to the CSF as the only organisation presenting to government an argument for shared parenting.
LikeLike
Eric T. said:
QV, I agree with your post and my position is similar if not the same.
LikeLike
Eric T. said:
exInjuria, my position is I want these proposals for a presumption of shared parenting in law to happen soon.
Anything that puts them at risk is an abomination and would be a tragedy for children, they are a ‘starting’ point only.
QV sums the ideal for me extremely eloquently.
What is your position on the proposals of this government for a presumption of shared parenting in legislation?
LikeLike
Eric T. said:
exInjuria, I agree lets move on from CSF after all it is now clear what their position is regarding a presumption of shared parenting in law as CSF have stated their position on the Voice of Russia, they are against a presumption, they agreed with the family lawyer on the debate that there was no need for a change in law.
Nothing that CSF had said on this blog has changed that position it seems. At least we now have clarification of their position (as much as we will get it seems) and I don’t want to spend any more time hoping the radio interview on VoR and their subsequent obfuscation was a mistake.
Fair comment, enough said ref the CSF.
LikeLike
Pingback: The Justice Committee publishes report on the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Children and Families Bill « Researching Reform
wisty said:
Another article attacking the gov moves for shared parenting in the courts has just been put out.
How mean spirited at this time of year when children and fathers are being kept apart because the law is not robust enough, for this article to appear and continue to undermine a change to a better system.
Yes, it will be only a beginning but better than nothing…..
Unbelievable…
http://karenwoodall.wordpress.com/2012/12/23/its-the-most-difficult-time-of-the-year/#comment-1508
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Dear Wisty, I’m sorry you feel the article is mean-spirited. It was written some time before Christmas, however, if you were to re-read it, you might note that we are not doubting the plight of the parent who is being withheld contact on unreasonable grounds, but rather, the proposal in law which we do not feel is the right remedy.
LikeLike
forcedadoption said:
WHY make something complicated by writing para after para of drivel when it could be so simple?Parents who have committed no crimes against children should always have regular contact with their kids without being jailed !
LikeLike
Bruno D'Itri said:
Family law is a multi-million pound business. The power and influence of the Law Society is not to be ignored or under-estimated.
When parents separate or divorce, the court automatically seeks to anoint one parent (usually the mother) with the legal status of ‘primary carer/resident parent’. It then bestows upon that parent a grossly disproportionate degree of power and control over the children vis-à-vis the ‘secondary carer/non-resident parent’ (dad).
In many acrimonious cases an embittered resident parent uses this power to exclude the second parent from the lives of the children. The courts are reluctant to punish this abhorrent behaviour, their rationale being that to punish the primary carer is tantamount to punishing the children. With no deterrence, this behaviour is set to continue.
Quite naturally, an unjustly excluded parent will employ the very costly (£200 plus per hour) services of solicitors and barristers in a desperate effort to regain contact with his children. Truly obscene sums of money begin to flow from broken families into the coffers of the law firms. The Family Justice Industry feeds upon the love an excluded parent has for his children.
A presumption of Shared Parenting would permit a loving parent to be fully involved in the parenting of his children, post separation or divorce, without the need for costly and lengthy litigation. In Australia, for example, litigation reduced by circa 30% following the introduction of Shared Parenting legislation. Of course, in those relatively few cases where there is a serious and proven risk of harm, contact can and should be restricted.
Plainly, a similar reduction of circa 30% in British family court litigation would prove extremely damaging to the Family Justice Industry. It is little wonder, then, that the Law Society is vehemently against a presumption of Shared Parenting. Family lawyers are not saints; we should not naively assume that their leaders would place genuine justice for parents and children ahead of their desire to maintain their income stream.
The judiciary is no better. Sir Nicholas Wall – the former President of the Family Division – sought to blame parents for “using their children as weapons”, without accepting in the least that it is the System itself which facilitates, encourages and fails to deter such abhorrent behaviour.
The real scandal is that the Law Society and the judiciary appear to have succeeded in persuading our Government to significantly dilute its original Shared Parenting proposals. There is now a very serious risk that the unsatisfactory status quo is set to continue.
Shame on the Law Society.
Shame on the judiciary.
Shame on the Government.
Bruno D’Itri
LikeLike
Pingback: Equal Parenting Stats | The Political Portal
Pingback: Question It! « Researching Reform
rwhiston said:
I may be wrong but no one seems to have challenged the “. . . Paramountcy Principle [as] the finest standard we have in ensuring that children can be with both their parents where it’s right for them to be so,. . .”
It is not.
I suspect it is based on Anna Freud’s wotk in the immediate post-war period where she gathered ‘evidence’ (though untrained) of dysfunctional orphan children who had not known their parents and were unable to speak and had not social skills, ie feral(see Bulldogs Bank etc). In other words all the negatives not found in 98% of most childen in a divorce scenario.
LikeLike
Bruno Ditri said:
Hello rwhiston
I agree with you to an extent.
No one can or should disagree with the premise that the child’s best interests should be paramount.
The problem is that our senior judiciary has opted to interpret the paramountcy principle of the CA1989 using suppositions which hark back to the 1960’s and 70’s. It has done so because of its rigid adherence to the system of ‘legal precedent’.
Above all, a child needs the love and nurturing of its mother and the financial support of its father. The woman is the emotionally weaker sex: if her wishes are thwarted by the court, her ability to parent effectively will be very adversely affected. A child can be raised quite satisfactorily without the nurturing of its father. A father can be permitted to share in the parenting of his child but only when the mother is in general agreement. If she is not in agreement, the father should not be permitted to share in the parenting because this would upset the mother, and the animosity thus generated would be harmful to the child.
If these are the suppositions written into decades of family legal precedent, and indelibly ingrained in the minds of the senior judiciary – such as Baroness Butler-Sloss, Lord Justice Thorpe and Sir Nicholas Wall – then it is quite obvious that they will opt to interpret the Paramountcy Principle of the CA1989 by adopting those very suppositions.
A perfect example is Payne v Payne (2001). Butler-Sloss and Thorpe decided that the best interests of a child would be served by ensuring that the child’s mother should not be upset by refusing her application to remove the child to the opposite side of the world. The fact that the child would lose its meaningful relationship with its father was not as important a factor as ensuring the complete happiness of the mother. In Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50, Nicholas Wall refused to permit any challenge to the ideology of Payne v Payne.
Our senior judiciary has utterly misjudged what is in the best interests of a child.
The forthcoming amendment to the CA1989 – inserting a presumption of shared parenting – will hopefully rectify that serious judicial error.
Regards,
Bruno D’Itri
LikeLike
Pingback: Shared Parenting Event: Fathers For Justice and George Galloway | Researching Reform
John Brookes said:
I WONDER IF “PARENTAL ALIENATION” WILL COME INTO THIS TOPIC OR DEBATE
LikeLike
Pingback: Natasha Phillips
Pingback: Natasha Phillips
Pingback: The Equal Parent Presumption: Social Justice in the Legal Determination of Parenting After Divorce | Researching Reform
Pingback: Contents Of Fathers’ Rights Debate In Westminster Revealed | Researching Reform