The Children and Families Bill 2012-2013 (which you can access here) has now been presented to Parliament, with its first reading yesterday (4th February) in the House of Commons, and is now starting to make its way through Westminster.
The Department for Education’s website tells us a little more about the Bill:
The Children and Families Bill takes forward the Coalition Government’s commitments to improve services for vulnerable children and support strong families. It underpins wider reforms to ensure that all children and young people can succeed, no matter what their background. The Bill will reform the systems for adoption, looked after children, family justice and special educational needs. It will encourage growth in the childcare sector, introduce a new system of shared parental leave and ensure children in England have a strong advocate for their rights.
Community Care have written a helpful piece on The Bill, but you can track The Bill’s progress on Parliament’s own very snazzy website. As we type, The Bill is currently awaiting its second reading in the House of Commons.
And now, there’s tons of information on The Bill on-line, all housed on the Department for Education’s website:
- A Summary Page of the Bill’s purpose, what it includes and The Bill itself
- A Fact Sheet on The Bill and;
- The Children and Families Bill (actual document)
The DofE tells us the main provisions relate to:
- Adoption and Virtual School Heads (VSH)
- The Family Justice System
- Special Education Needs
- Childcare
- Office of the Children’s Commissioner (OCC) and;
- Shared Parental Leave and Flexible Working
And here are some more articles on The Bill which have started to emerge:
We look forward to hearing your thoughts on The Bill…..
Researching Reform 
Pingback: Children and Families Bill – Now Live | Parents Against Injustice.
“CHILD SNATCHING MADE EASIER” should be the title of this deplorable bill !
LikeLike
I am very pleased indeed that our Government has recognised the tremendous importance for a child to be permitted to maintain a meaningful relationship with both its parents, post separation/divorce.
This was an original intention of the Children Act (1989), but was misinterpreted by the judiciary (specifically by Butler-Sloss).
I have campaigned vigorously over recent years for the acceptance of the principle that a child’s paramount interests are served by the courts giving due regard to maintaining its meaningful relationship with both its parents.
Sadly, to date, the judiciary has remained more focused upon the wishes and feelings of the so-called ‘primary carer’ and has relegated the importance of the involvement of the de-facto ‘secondary carer’.
There have been well-publicised cases in which the judiciary has recognised this short-coming in the law, but have been unable or unwilling to act.
In the reserved judgment of Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50, for example, the former President of the Family Division, Sir Nicholas Wall broadcast (and later reiterated in a Family Affairs interview) his carefully considered view that Relocation Law – in the form of Payne v Payne – ascribed too great a weight to the wishes of the primary carer and relegated the harm done to a child due to the loss of its meaningful relationship with the left-behind parent.
Regardless of his concerns, however, he proceeded to apply the existing legal principles of Payne, which, as we know, gave overriding weight to the wishes of the relocating parent and relegated the harm to the children of the loss of their meaningful relationship with their left behind father! Wall was either unable or unwilling to re-write his legal precedent.
With the forthcoming amendment to the Children Act, the judiciary will be FORCED to give due and proper weight to maintaining meaningful relationships with both parents.
It is hard to see how the principles of Payne can now survive.
A child which has been removed from its home country cannot easily benefit from a meaningful relationship with the left-behind parent!
I expect this thoroughly arcane and beastly law to be consigned to the history books before too long.
Regards
Bruno D’Itri
LikeLike
I’m watching the developments from afar (Russia), yet I cannot abstain from politely wondering how on earth, in a developed first-world country (not some hinterland ravaged by decades of war), a general children’s bill can start with the word “adoption”. It’s indecent.
LikeLike
About 10 years ago two social workers founded ” The National Fostering Agency” and only last year it was sold to a very commercial company called “Graphite” for more than £130million .Most of those involved in the fostering and adoption industries (socialworkers,guardians,solicitors,barristers,psychologists,psychiatrists,medical experts, parent assessors,independent social workers,and last but not least judges) all make a very good living out of it but some make exhorbitant profits ! IF parents defend themselves and their children too robustly it is viewed as an attack on a very profitable system.Birds of a feather flock together ,thus all who live by the system flock to defend it;New rules and new laws appear regularly to make it easier and quicker to snatch children for fostering and adoption and to rigorously enforce secrecy so the public at large are kept in ignorance.
Even Communism at its worst my Russian friend, never descended to the depths of iniquity perpetrated daily in our UK family courts !
LikeLike
Pingback: Judges Should Talk to Children Before Making Care Decisions « Researching Reform
Pingback: Children and Families Bill – Update (Second Reading Now Scheduled) « Researching Reform
The Children Act of 1989 required the judiciary to serve the paramount interests of the child.
Surely no one can disagree with this fundamental principle.
The problem is that our senior judiciary has opted to interpret this paramountcy principle by adopting out-of-date 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. Women are the emotionally weaker sex: if their wishes are thwarted by the court, their ability to parent their child will be adversely affected. A child can be raised quite satisfactorily without the nurturing of its father. A father may be permitted to share in the parenting of his child, but only if the mother is in agreement. If she is not in agreement, the father should not be involved in the parenting because this would upset the mother, and the resulting animosity would be harmful to the child. If a mother is found to have lodged false or exaggerated accusations of physical or emotional violence against a father, she should not be punished because this would harm her child.
If these are the suppositions written into decades of 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 these judges will opt to interpret the Paramountcy Principle of the CA1989 by adopting those suppositions.
A perfect example is Payne v Payne (2001). Butler-Sloss and Thorpe decided that the paramount interests of a child would best be served by ensuring that the child’s mother should not be upset by refusing her application to remove the child overseas. The unfortunate consequence – that the child would lose its meaningful relationship with its father – was not as important a factor as ensuring the 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, despite having being presented with a plethora of powerful scientific evidence in favour of shared parenting. Wall relegated the importance of that evidence.
Our senior judiciary has utterly misjudged the best interests of the child by remaining stubbornly wedded to an out-of-date ideology of parenthood.
The forthcoming amendment to the CA1989 – inserting a presumption of shared parenting – will hopefully rectify that serious judicial error.
Regards,
Bruno D’Itri
LikeLike
Dear forcedadoption, I think that you are very well informed. Have you ever considered finding out the ANNUAL COST to the Taxpayer to the ENTIRE SS system from Police, Lawyers, SS workers, magistrates and Courts. Your “About 10 years ago” speaks volumes about THE SYSTEM. May I also compliment the person from RUSSIA.
LikeLike
All, No Shared Parenting legislation. Presumably to follow? kip
LikeLike
The Law Society is vehemently opposed to a presumption of shared parenting and strongly rejects any modification to the Children Act.
It claims there is no evidence of any discrimination against non-primary, non-resident parents. Its leaders somehow seem oblivious to the fact that, week after week, many good parents find themselves unfairly excluded from the lives of their children, sometimes for many months on end.
Of course, the raison d’etre of the Law Society is to serve the best interests of its membership, the Legal Industry.
The Law Society is perfectly aware of the extensive and compelling contemporary scientific evidence which demonstrates, beyond any reasonable doubt, the significant benefits for children of remaining in meaningful contact with both their natural parents post separation or divorce.
However, the Law Society also realises that shared parenting legislation is likely to be highly damaging to the interests of its membership.
Many non-primary, non-resident parents unjustly excluded from their children’s lives will, quite naturally, employ the very costly (£200 plus per hour) services of solicitors and barristers in a desperate effort to regain contact with their children.
Truly obscene sums of money begin to flow from broken families into the coffers of the law firms. The Family Justice Industry could be said to ‘feed’ upon the love an excluded parent has for his children.
A presumption of shared parenting would permit a good and loving parent to be fully and meaningfully involved in his children’s lives, 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.
Plainly, a similar reduction in British family court litigation would prove extremely damaging for the Family Justice Industry.
The Law Society thus faces a real dilemma.
Should it stand up for the genuine interests of children and their parents and support shared parenting legislation? Or, instead, should it champion the interests of its membership and oppose it?
Rather predictably, the Law Society has opted for the latter and has been attempting to convince Government officials that shared parenting legislation would be detrimental to the interests of child welfare.
Can we really blame the Law Society for looking after its own? Not really. The livelihood of thousands of family lawyers hangs in the balance. They face significant hardships, perhaps even unemployment.
Nevertheless, our Government’s overriding duty must be to serve the best interests of children and of their parents.
Plainly, if our Government succumbs to the powerful and persuasive lobbying of the Law Society, it may fail in that duty.
Our Government would be well advised to evaluate the views of the Law Society in the light of its plain and considerable vested interest in the status quo.
LikeLike
All, The Law Society is not the only organisation opposed to Shared Parenting. I have just received my second letter from the Justice Committee which I will publish regarding Sir Alan Beith, Chairman of the Justice Committee, telling BBC Woman’s Hour, ‘You do no good if you put, for example, a woman in prison for persistent failure to obey court orders’ – In conversation with Jenni Murray (24 January 2013). The pre-legislative scrutiny of the bill by the Justice Committee was based on the presupposition that there is no evidence of bias in family courts! Many Thanks, kip
VIDEO – Sir Alan Beith MP says, ‘You do no good if you put a woman in prison’
LikeLike
Every major world religion has understood for millenia that children require the love, guidance and nurturing of both their mother and their father.
Furthermore, there now exists a plethora of contemporary psychological and sociological research (some of it Government-commissioned) which plainly demonstrates the benefits for children of their remaining in meaningful contact with both parents post separation/ divorce:
Click to access April7_Kruk.pdf
http://www.thecustodyminefield.com/Reports/FamilyLaw-Relocation_The_Need_For_Reform.pdf (pages 20 & 21)
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=scientific+evidence+for+shared+parenting+&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CGcQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aph.gov.au%2FParliamentary_Business%2FCommittees%2FHouse_of_Representatives_Committees%3Furl%3Dfca%2Fchildcustody%2Fsubs%2Fsub0909appc.pdf&ei=grP9UKHAPPKb1AXuh4DgDA&usg=AFQjCNHP38avU08444gTgcf4D7h3Kp69rg
Of course, as with all scientific inquiry, the evidence is never 100% conclusive. Selected research which undermines shared parenting in high-conflict situations can certainly be found.
However, when taken as a whole – “meta-analysed” – there is a general consensus amongst social scientists that children undoubtedly benefit from being permitted to remain in meaningful contact with both their natural parents.
Furthermore, much of the scientific data in favour of shared parenting has already been exhibited as evidence at the Family Division of the High Court.
After having read such evidence in the case of Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50, the former President of the Family Division, Sir Nicholas Wall published his considered view that current family law relegates the importance of maintaining a meaningful and on-going relationship between children and their non-resident parent.
In Re AR (A Child: Relocation) [2010] EWHC 1346, High Court judge, Sir Nicholas Mostyn J, also made reference to contemporary scientific evidence in favour of shared parenting.
Finally, it is vitally important to dismiss two prevalent myths concerning shared parenting:
Firstly, shared parenting does not necessitate a 50/50 division of parenting time, and most parents are quite capable of understanding this point. Good and loving non-primary parents who currently find themselves excluded from their children’s lives for many months on end would, I am quite sure, be very happy simply to continue seeing their children on a frequent and regular basis at a below 50% level.
Secondly, if there is evidence of verifiable danger to the child, contact can and will be restricted. The Bill makes this perfectly clear and I am quite surprised that those opposed to the legislation appear blind to this very important safe-guard. The Bill clearly does not undermine the Paramountcy Principle.
Regards
Bruno D’Itri
LikeLike
According to Edward Kruk (2012) “much of the “practice wisdom” regarding high conflict and equal parenting is not empirically supported, including the following assumptions: conflict is inherently bad for children; conflict will increase with equal parenting; equal parenting will not benefit children in high conflict situations; and little or nothing can be done to decrease conflict. Current literature does not support a presumption that the amount of parenting time should be limited in cases of high conflict, and high conflict should not be used to justify restrictions on children’s contact with either of their parents (Lamb and Kelly, 2009; Fabricius and Luecken, 2007).”
LikeLike
Attachment research for family court professhionals by Michael E Lamb 2012
http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/attachmentresearchforfamilycourtprofesshionalsbymichaelelamb2012.htm
LikeLike
Shared Parenting After Divorce: A Review of Shared Residential Parenting Research
Click to access areviewofsharedresidentialparentingresearch18thnovember2011.pdf
LikeLike
Pingback: Commons second reading of Children and Families Bill | Researching Reform
We may also wish to consider the position of the Children’s Commissioner, published very recently:
http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/content/publications/content_651
Important extracts from this report include:
“The UK Government ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in 1991. This is the most widely ratified international human rights treaty, setting out what all children and young people need to be happy and healthy… it has the status of a binding international treaty. By agreeing to the UNCRC the Government has committed itself to promoting and protecting children’s rights by all means available to it.”
– and –
“The legislation governing the operation of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner requires us to have regard to the Convention in all our activities.”
– and –
“The most important of children’s UNCRC rights engaged by these proposals are:
Article 3: the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration
Article 7: the child’s right to know and be cared for by their parents
Article 9: the right of a child not to be separated from their parents except where such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child”
– and –
“Article 8 of ECHR provides for the rights of children [and] birth parents… to respect for their… family life.”
—
Given the Commissioner’s plain duty to abide by these International Articles, one might reasonably assume that she would be in agreement with the Government’s proposed legislation to uphold the meaningful involvement of both natural parents in the life of a child (subject, of course, to the absence of harm).
Not so!
Instead, the Commissioner states that…
“If the provisions are widely (mis)interpreted as a presumption of equally ‘shared time’, there is a risk of greater conflict and litigation focused on parents’ wishes rather than the child’s needs and interests. A number of stakeholders have suggested that a belief that there is a presumption of shared time would lead parents (largely women) to believe that it was pointless to report domestic violence or child abuse. Careful monitoring would be required to ensure the meaning of ‘involvement’ has been effectively communicated to the public and understood, and that neither of these unintended, but very serious consequences resulted from the provision.”
The Children’s Commissioner somehow seems oblivious to the widely-report fact that, in Britain today, many thousands of children suffer tremendously due to a lack of a meaningful relationship with their non-resident parents. Surely, any legislation which makes it easier for a good parent to remain in contact with their children is desirable?
Her stance is of little surprise.
The Children’s Commissioner was petitioned repeatedly in 2009/2010/2011 by campaigners calling for a reform of relocation law. They asked her to intervene because relocation law, in the form of Payne v Payne, relegated a child’s UN and ECHR rights.
It appears that the Children’s Commissioner opted to ignore the needs of thousands of children who were benefiting from ‘shared care arrangements’ with both their parents, but who were, nevertheless, removed overseas by one parent. As a consequence, the children lost their meaningful relationship with the left-behind parent.
It should be well noted that, despite the refusal of the Commissioner to involve herself, the Court of Appeal eventually accepted the campaigners’ arguments and ‘reviewed’ relocation law in 2011.
In conclusion, the Children’s Commissioner fails to recognise the tremendous importance for children of maintaining meaningful relationships with two good and caring parents.
She fails in her duty to defend and uphold the UN and ECHR Rights of children, specifically:
UN Article 7: the child’s right to know and be cared for by THEIR parents
UN Article 9: the right of a child not to be separated from THEIR parents except where such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child
ECHR Article 8: the rights of children [and] birth parents… to respect for THEIR… family life.
Regards
Bruno D’Itri
LikeLike
[content removed]
LikeLike
Hi David, posters are welcome to share their thoughts on content which arises from this blog but any personal projects should be carried out on the individual’s own blog.
LikeLike
I’ve just been fiddling with the zoom function of the SatNav on my new Audi (yes ladies… a new Audi!).
I zoomed right out and managed to get the whole of Western Europe on the screen. This wasn’t particularly helpful in assisting me with my 1 mile journey to the local shops!
Incidently, as a man, I feel compelled to use the SatNav for each and every journey, even short, familiar routes I could probably drive blind-folded!
Anyway, while I was fiddling, it made me think about the Children and Families Bill, and about the need to ‘zoom out’ for perspective.
There has always been a direct link between societal norms and legislation.
Most significant shifts in societal norms have led to changes in legislation, but this has usually involved a tough struggle!
Anti-discrimination legislation for people of different race, gender and sexual orientation all eventually followed in the wake of changes in society.
However, in each case, the resistance from what I shall call ‘the forces of conservatism’ was powerful. There were significant vested interests in the status quo, and those who stood to lose out were not going to accept change without a fight!
In each case, honourable campaigners for justice and reform were discredited, undermined, attacked and even murdered.
Martin Luther King Jr’s letter from Birmingham Gaol touches my heart each and every time I read it. It is the quintessential call of any person facing discrimination and demanding justice.
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
Now, I perfectly accept that Matt O’Connor of ‘Fathers 4 Justice’ is NO Martin Luther King Jr!
However, his argument for justice for children is, in my view, Righteous. It is Good. It is Honourable.
A child surely deserves to enjoy the love, care and guidance of two good and responsible natural parents.
The ideology of parenthood of the 1960’s and 70’s saw the mother as the ‘natural’ carer and the father as the ‘natural’ financial provider. Family legislation reflected this ideology.
Of course, societal norms have now changed. In 21st century Britain, BOTH genders are now viewed as natural carers and financial providers.
Has legislation fully caught up with this societal change? No.
Do fathers face systematic gender discrimination? Yes.
Is this discrimination indirectly perpetrated via the legal constructs of ‘primary carer’ and ‘non-primary carer’? Yes.
I am a good, responsible and conscientious parent. I know I am, because a judge found me to be so!
And yet I was forced to endure two periods of separation from my beautiful children: firstly for 8 months and subsequently for 1.5 years.
I now see my children once a month in a motel room in Eastern Europe.
Any genuine ‘meaningful involvement’ in my children’s lives has been significantly undermined.
I am not alone in my experience.
There are thousands of perfectly good and caring British parents (mainly fathers) who face similar discrimination.
To the “discrimination deniers”, to those who seek to preserve their vested interests in the status quo, and to those who are simply unaware of the discrimination, I say, think of that child, think of what he is missing, think of what you might say to him if he asked you why he couldn’t see his dad.
Let us open our hearts and our minds.
Let family legislation reflect modern parenthood.
Let us support Tim Loughton MP and his shared parenting legislation in the Children and Families Bill.
Regards
Bruno D’Itri
LikeLike
Please read what Earl Howe said on the 12th of October in 2005 & what Tim Loughton said on the 20th of June in 2006
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldhansrd/vo051012/text/51012-44.htm
Earl Howe:
12 Oct 2005 : Column GC106
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo060620/debtext/60620-0017.htm#06062068000948
Children and Adoption Bill debate
20 Jun 2006 : Column 1282
LikeLike
Child kidnapping by the State is far too profitable to be stopped by anyone at the moment, but contact is another matter altogether.
The most cruel and positively wicked thing a judge can do is to forbid a non addictive,non criminal parent from contacting their own child not only face to face but by post, email,phone,facebook book,or indirectly through friends.This is compounded when the same restriction is placed on a child forbidding any form of contact with a parent it may love.
I have a cluster of parents ,(mostly but not exclusively mothers) who have not only been forbidden all forms of contact but have also been forbidden by injunction from telling anyone about this prohibition !Several have been briefly jailed for leaving xmas or birthday presents on a doorstep,for waving in the street as a child passed by either on foot or in a car,leading to the worst extreme when Vicky Haigue was sentenced to 3 years (reduced by 9 months to 2 year 3 months on appeal)for speaking to a daughter she had not seen for more than a year !
Rapists,burglars,and paedos often get off more lightly than that….But they have not experienced the vengeance incurred by those parents who defy the ultra cruel prohibitions of the family court judges !
LikeLike