Welcome to another week.

The High Court in Bombay, India, has ruled that denying mothers custody under certain circumstances amounts to domestic violence. 

The case involved a couple whose marriage broke down shortly after it began. The mother gave birth to a boy who arrived prematurely. It is alleged that the mother’s in-laws then decided to prevent the mother from caring for the baby, even going so far as to prevent her from touching him. They had taken the view that the mother was not mature enough to care for her baby, was often cruel to the baby and her inability to breastfeed was also harming the baby.

The mother claimed she was being so badly emotionally abused by her in-laws that she was eventually forced to flee to her parents’ home.

The mother subsequently filed for, and was awarded interim custody of her son under the country’s Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act, 2005.

The father tried to block the application for interim custody arguing amongst other things that his son needed proper treatment which he could only get in Mumbai. However, the High Court upheld the original order citing the view that a denial of interim contact would result in the mother’s mental health being harmed which was in itself a form of domestic violence.

Counsel for the mother:

“There is no connection between lack of lactation and motherly attachment to one’s own baby. By seeking child’s custody, wife has shown that she is concerned about his welfare and desirous of giving him love. The baby is so small that his being with mother would only help him grow and develop.” 

The court went on to remind the parties that contact orders were only temporary and could be changed at any time.

Setting aside the facts of this case for a moment, the High Court ruling raises an interesting point about domestic abuse in the context of parenting, a point which could be applied equally to fathers.

Currently, the act of blocking contact is talked about using terms like Parental Alienation, whether this behaviour is a psychological disorder, and whether in fact alienation is a ‘real’ phenomenon (which Researching Reform believes it is, though we are not convinced about it being a mental health illness). This case frames the behaviour in an alternative way.

So, our question this week, is just this: do you think denial of contact could amount to domestic abuse? 

Many thanks to Charles Pragnell for sharing this news item with us.

Welcome to another week. A World War free week. For now.

As calls for transparency within the Family Courts continue, a growing number of questions raised by MPs in the House of Commons ask about the data available on these courts.

More often than not, the Ministry of Justice and other relevant departments are unable to provide this information, either due to what’s claimed to be a disproportionate cost in having to collect these stats, or simply because the data is not stored in the first place.

Much of the data not stored or efficiently recorded could be considered essential information.

A recent example of a written request asked for details about stalking and harassment orders issued from 2014-2015. Whilst data on the number of orders was available, the Minister responding confirmed that details about specific restrictions included in a restraining order was not held centrally and could only be obtained at an unreasonable cost.

The minister went on to say that there were also no stats on how frequently perpetrators of stalking and harassment try to contact their victims through action in the civil or family courts.

Freedom of Information requests made by the public and campaigners asking for data on orders, policy implementation and the impact of legislation often come back with little or no information.

However, the government does publish reports and bulletins which include data about things like legal aid, litigants in person and the numbers of certain types of orders issued.

Our question, is this: what kind of Family Court focused data would you like the government to produce, or do we have enough stats for the time being?

The 18th January was a busy day for child welfare matters in the House of Commons.

As Britain moves forward with plans to leave the EU, questions are now being asked about cross border agency information sharing, especially in relation to child protection.

Yesterday, ministers discussed how leaving the EU might affect Britain’s security, law enforcement and its criminal justice system.  Home Affairs Committee Chair, Yvette Cooper, asked whether the government planned to try to keep its Europol membership. Europol has worked closely with the Met in order to protect children from child abuse and exploitation.

The child abuse inquiry also continues to dominate Commons’ discussions.

In another debate, Ann Clwyd MP asked if the Home Department would take steps to encourage survivors of non recent child abuse to share their experience with the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. (And Ann, it is non recent rather than historic abuse, a term survivors and victims don’t care for much).

After research came to light exposing the practice of alleged abusers and convicted perpetrators of abuse personally cross examining their victims in court, the House has seen a flurry of activity on this issue.

Jess Phillips MP raised two questions this week. The first asked the Secretary Of State For Justice what plans the Department had to consult with Women’s Aid and survivors of domestic abuse on the ancillary measures needed to enforce a ban on perpetrators of domestic abuse from directly cross-examining their victims in the family court. Oliver Heald responded by saying the government was committed to addressing this issue as quickly as possible.

Jess also asked whether a timetable was in place to get this work underway – the government said it hoped to get this matter resolved soon.

Wishing everyone a good weekend,

Researching Reform.

Ahead of Donald Trump’s inauguration as President of the United States at 5pm tomorrow, avid supporters of outgoing POTUS Barack Obama have taken to Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to show their appreciation for the former President.

The hashtag #ThanksObama, previously used to mock the President, has been turned on its head and social media users are adding it to photos and videos of the President and his family to express gratitude, and to show their support.

During his time in office, Obama was heavily criticised by many for his policy choices, strategy on foreign affairs and what some felt was a naive perception of politics.

We saw something different.

Whilst his time in office was not perfect, Obama lived his presidency like a man of principle rather than a cynic. He leaves us with a blueprint to protect the future.

Whilst this is something we write about often on the blog and campaign passionately on, it is wonderful to see other organisations working to highlight poor policy especially in relation to children being removed from parents when better alternatives exist.

A new report by Legal Action For Women says that children are increasingly being removed from single parent families due to poverty and that mothers who actively come forward for help to improve their situations are finding their children are being taken from them instead. It also raises concerns over the ‘secrecy’ of family courts which prevent mothers from openly talking about their cases.

Dr Andy Bilson, who is emeritus professor of social work at the University of Lancashire, has been looking carefully at adoption data and concludes that the steep rise in care applications has less to do with an awareness of, or rise in incidents of neglect and more to do with policies which prioritise removal over support.

The article in the Guardian explains:

The report examined the cases of 56 women, all of whom came for help to fight for their children. Between them the women had 101 children; 71% of the women had suffered rape and/or domestic violence, 47% did not have a lawyer and 39% had mental health problems.

Anne Neale, one of the report’s authors, said: “Charges of neglect are used to punish, especially single-mother families, for their unbearably low incomes.

“The fundamental relationship between mother and child is dismissed as irrelevant to a child’s wellbeing and development, and the trauma of separation, and its lifelong consequences, are ignored.

“Mothers who are victims of domestic violence are refused help, blamed for ‘failing to protect’ their children, and punished with their removal.”

We could not agree with this report more. From financial incentives in adoption to a complete disregard for the importance of attachments and the impact of destroying them, the Family Court system is woefully behind when it comes to implementing effective and powerful child welfare policies.  We know that there are other, far better alternatives to placing children in care for the vast majority of cases, so the question has to be, why is the child welfare system not using them?

Read Legal Action For Women’s report “Suffer The Little Children”, here. 

Very many thanks to Charles Pragnell for alerting us to this development.