Some thought provoking questions about child protection and perjury were asked yesterday in the Commons. They came in the form of written questions, which were put to the Ministry Of Justice (MOJ).
The Conservatives have clearly got a bee in their bonnet about lying in the Family Courts this week. Two ministers broached the subject, each from a slightly different standpoint.
Hugo Swire MP asked the Ministry Of Justice how many cases brought before the family courts have been found to be based on false allegations over the last 10 years. Answering on behalf of the MOJ, Dominic Raab, who is the current Minister of State for Justice, confirmed that this kind of information was not held centrally.
With so much box ticking and form filling taking place within local and central government these days, you’d think these departments would store important information like this. Good record keeping is one of our big bug bears, but that’s another post for another day.
The second question on the topic of lying in court was sent in by Tory MP Andrew Bridgen, who asked the MOJ how many people had been prosecuted for perjury in the family court since 2007, by gender. Once again, Raab is unable to offer an answer, citing unreasonable costs as a barrier to accessing this data.
It’s no coincidence that two, Conservative MPs have raised the subject of lying in family court at the same time, both asking for a ten year breakdown. The reference to gender, though apparently balanced, could be read as a hostile declaration of intent towards mothers, by two male MPs.
It’s likely that Families Need Fathers (FNF) have been busy lobbying Hugo and Andrew, as the Fathers’ Rights Group has strong links to the Conservative party.
You’ll also find Hugo’s signature on an FNF backed 2004 Early Day Motion calling for a presumption of shared parenting, which Fathers’ Rights Groups have been trying to force through for years. They are also notorious for alleging that women are the main perpetrators of dishonesty within custody disputes.
The last question moves away from perjury and looks at domestic violence. It comes from Plaid Cymru Westminster Leader Liz Saville-Roberts, whose impressive list of roles include shadow spokesperson for Justice, Women and Equalities and Home Affairs.
Liz asks the MOJ whether the family courts take a child’s witnessing of domestic violence into consideration when making directions in child contact proceedings. Dominic answers with this information:
“The welfare of the child is the court’s paramount concern when making any decision about their upbringing, including with whom the child is to live or spend time. In all cases where a parent applies to the family court for a child arrangements order, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) in England and Cafcass Cymru in Wales undertake safeguarding checks with the police and relevant local authority children’s services. Relevant information about risk, including from domestic abuse, is reported to the court in writing prior to the first hearing to inform safe decision-making.
In determining the child’s welfare needs the court will apply the factors set out in the ‘welfare checklist’ in the Children Act 1989. One of those factors concerns any harm the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering, which would include any harm from witnessing domestic abuse.”
Whilst it might seem like a simple question, it is anything but. The harm children experience witnessing domestic violence has up until recently not been factored into care proceedings in any meaningful way, with past court policy being very much that seeing violence is less detrimental than experiencing it first hand. (This is an area we are passionate about and have written on often. If you would like to see the latest findings, we have some available on our website.)
Liz’s question is important. As emerging research is now confirming, children who witness domestic violence are very badly affected by it, and this phenomenon needs to be more widely acknowledged and addressed in court proceedings. (Even if Dominic believes it is a foregone conclusion within the system).
Regardless of incentive or motivation for questions about child welfare, we are glad that ministers are talking about these issues. Those of us who began campaigning ten years ago will remember the silence surrounding child welfare – one minister even told us at the start of our journey, “Don’t go there – you won’t get one politician to talk about what is essentially a taboo.”
False allegations of domestic violence and child abuse are used in the family courts on a daily basis right across the country by resident parents (mothers in the vast majority of cases) to dictate the outcome of contact and residence applications with impunity.
The family courts view separating couples as two legal components: the ‘resident parent’ and the ‘non-resident parent’ (who does not live with the child). Although these two legal concepts might sound similar they are treated completely differently in the family courts. The only legal right a non-resident parent has is they can apply to the courts for contact. They do not have any other significant or presumptive rights over their children.
Most people believe they have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law if they were accused of domestic violence or child abuse given they are criminal offences. However, this principle only applies in criminal trials which have to prove a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not apply in the family courts which are civil proceedings where the best interest test is applied to all decisions which are made on a balance of probability.
Family court judges do not believe it would be in a child’s best interest to question what the resident parent has said (to see if it is true or not) because they claim do so would undermind their authority as the primary care giver. You might wonder how any decision could ever be reasonably considered as safe and in a child’s best interests if they do not check.
As a result of being separated from the father, children are placed at higher risk of child abuse, academic difficulties, conduct problems, and involvement with the criminal justice system.
Presumed guilty of domestic violence on a balance of probability 10th April 2006 http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/domesticviolenceonabalanceofprobability10thapril2006.htm
MoJ do not know how many are convicted of making false allegations 27th March 2013 http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/mojdonotknowhowmanyareconvictedofmakingfalseallegations27thmarch2013.htm
http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/domesticviolence.htm
Milton Keynes county court has referred 1 case of perjury to the police in the last 5 years 19th February 2013 http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/miltonkeynescountycourthasreferred1caseofperjurytothepoliceinthelast5years19thfebruary2013.htm
To secure a conviction of perjury requires 2 witnesses 24th January 2013 http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/tosecureaconvictionofperjuryrequires2witnesses24thjanuary2013.htm
http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/court.htm
Police will only investigate perjury if told to do so by a judge 14th November 2002 http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/policewillonlyinvestigateperjuryiftoldtodosobyajudge14thnovember2002.htm
http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/police.htm
The Tender years theory effectively prevents children from having a family life with their fathers 5th February 2013 http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/thetenderyearstheoryeffectivelypreventschildrenfromhavingafamilylifewiththeirfathers5thfebruary2013.htm
The Tender Years Doctrine as applied through Case Laws in UK Family Proceedings.
http://openfamilycourtsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/disputes-in-one-of-fact-which-involves_23.html?m=1
Fifty years of ‘Maternal Deprivation’ reassessed. by Kingsley Miller
http://www.familieslink.co.uk/pages/research_maternaldeprivation.htm
http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/comments17thjanuary2013.htm
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your comment, David. Your quote”(mothers in the vast majority of cases)”. Could you offer viable research which clarifies this claim?
LikeLike
In private law, defathering is as wrong as demothering – gender-based discrimination against the child whose welfare is paramount and requires the presumption of shared or equal parenting to be promoted not undermined.
Another discrepancy over the civil standard in public law shows how dysfunctional and internecine over-reliance on rhetoric over the standard of proof can be to the detriment of the child(ren) and parents concerned
#FamLaw: Should There Be a Third Standard of Proof in Care Cases? https://truthaholics.wordpress.com/law-should-there-be-a-third-standard-of-proof-in-care-cases/
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
I do not believe that ‘the welfare of the child(ren) is the Court’s paramount concern’. If it was, decisions would not ever be made on ‘the balance of probability’. I agree with David Mortimer that the non-resident parent is treated unfairly by these Courts but disagree that it is fathers per se that are targeted. It is because fathers are more often the non-resident parent that the impression has arisen that this is a gender issue. I have been involved with several cases where the mother has been the non-resident parent and has been treated just as harshly as any father, or even more so.
I think we must try and put aside this belief that fathers are unfairly targeted because they are male. It is the distinction between resident and non-resident parent that is the real problem. I believe that both men and women are equally capable of lying in Court (just look at some of the cases involving male and female ‘expert witnesses’). We are equally culpable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
Defathering is as wrong as demothering – gender-based discrimination against the child whose welfare is paramount and requires the presumption of shared or equal parenting to be promoted not undermined.
LikeLike
“how many cases brought before the family courts have been found to be based on false allegations over the last 10 years.”
.
“how many people had been prosecuted for perjury in the family court since 2007, ”
.
No big Surprise there. Mr Raab could not give an answer.
i would say thats not good enough when those two very Powerful questions are also being asked for the thousands of family lives that have been destroyed with the use of lies and corruption.
i would expect this to spark i full investigation to get to the Truth.
We have had enough of cover ups and carpet sweeping.
its time for Truth and Justice.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher and commented:
Much work combined with absolute integrity will be required to make these plans succeed.
LikeLike
A reader has asked us to share this research on false allegations made in court. http://www.tribunafeminista.org/2017/09/la-fiscalia-desmonta-el-mito-de-las-denuncias-falsas/
It is in Spanish, but Google will offer you the option of translating it. The research was sourced from this blog: https://ilricciocornoschiattoso.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
Natasha,
you able to copy the English version and paste it into this Blog ?
LikeLike
Hi Dr Manhattan, there isn’t anywhere I can really do that – Google should offer you a translate option right at the top. Failing that, you can cut and paste the article into Google Translate’s home page and it will translate it for you – just select Spanish in the first box and English for the second x
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, this is what i got.
“The very low percentage of cases brought in total for the crime of accusation and false accusation from 2009 to 2015 -164- in relation to the number of complaints filed -913.118-, which represents a 0.0079%, is eloquent enough to counteract the voices that rise about the prevalence of “false accusations” in this matter. “These are the terms used by the Office of the Prosecutor in its report to put an end to speculation on this issue.
Between 2009 and 2015, there were 913,118 complaints of gender-based violence, 63 convictions for false reports were imposed, and 90 convictions and prosecutions remain pending. Taking into account the data of convictions for false-63 complaints, the percentage of this type of complaints over 7 years is only 0.0069 percentage points. The report adds: “If we add these cases to the proceeding, in the event that they result in convictions (90), the maximum final percentage will be 0.0099%.”
This figure is resounding, false reports are far from reaching 1% of the total number of complaints. It should serve as a strong argument to end this false myth.
The Office of the Prosecutor also points out that the number of women murdered by their partner or ex-partner rose in 2015, compared to previous years, as there were 62 deaths. In 2012, 52 women died, 55 women died in 2013 and in 2014 58 were killed. “Of the 62 dead, only 14 had previously reported, 8 were Spanish and 6 were foreign. This is a setback compared to 2014, “said the annual report.
“The brutality in the means employed or in the way of killing the victim remains the general theme and it could even be said that in the period analyzed has increased. Often the violence and the number of wounds caused is greater than that necessary to cause death, for what he seeks is to inflict intense and profound damage. ” The Office of the Prosecutor explains that, once again, the domination factor that inspires gender violence is manifested.
This institution expresses its concern about the cruelty of sexist violence and stresses the need to offer true protection to victims that facilitates their own moral integrity and emotional stability. Reports four new instruments for the protection of victims:”
LikeLike
Research just published into a sample of 75 Scottish family actions revealed that allegations of abuse were made in 35% of contact/residence actions and 70% were found or judged to be false. All but two of the allegations were made by mother and in those two cases the father was the ‘resident parent’.
The research by Professor Tommy MacKay of Strathclyde University was published in the British Psychological Society’s Educational & Child Psychology Vol 31 No 3 September 2014: Child Abuse and Protection (see https://shop.bps.org.uk/publications/publications-by-subject/education-and-children/educational-child-psychology-vol-31-no-3-september-2014-child-abuse-and-protection.html).
There is a need for bigger, UK wide, research studies. In the meanwhile, this study at least points to a very large number of ‘non-resident’ parents, mostly dads, who are in fact the victims in cases involving false abuse allegations intended to disrupt or destroy their relationships with their children.
LikeLike
Dear Natasha,
We thought it would also be appropriate to make a number of observations about your assertions about FNF above.
You say: “It’s likely that Families Need Fathers (FNF) have been busy lobbying Hugo and Andrew, as the Fathers’ Rights Group has strong links to the Conservative party.”
For the record, we have not lobbied either Hugo Swire MP or Andrew Bridgen MP in recent years. However we are always on the lookout for MPs who have an interest in a more gender-neutral family justice. Neither do we have particularly strong links to the Conservative Party. In 2008 there was a meeting with them because they were the party of Government and a number of them showed an interest in our work. We also have contacts in the Labour party (the Labour peer, Lord Blunkett, is a patron) and Nick Clegg supported some of our work too a few years ago. We are a registered charity and are in no way politically partisan. The suggestion that we are is simply incorrect and speculative. Our supporters and members come from across the political spectrum and we have supported proposals for legislative change from MPs in all three main political parties.
We are not a ‘Fathers’ Rights Group’ either. We consider ourselves to be a child centred shared parenting charity. We have helped thousands of parents, mostly dads (since they are by far the most likely to be the ‘non-resident parents’ (NRPs), in securing ongoing, safe and loving relationships with their children after separation. We are gender inclusive and a small proportion of our service users are women and grandparents. However, some 6,000 applications are made annually for enforcement of orders made ‘in the interest of the child’, with barely 2% being enforced. We need a family justice system that is fit for purpose, not adversarial and also more open to scrutiny. It needs to recognise that the old model of mother ‘carer’ and father ‘provider’ does not hold for many families and is no longer the default operation for many couples. We also need to learn from other jurisdictions to see what can be improved e.g. policy changes in Sweden have led to 50/50 shared care in almost half of separations, with only some 2% now being resolved in courts and with lower levels of abuse reported and, no doubt, fewer allegations in either direction.
You say: “They are also notorious for alleging that women are the main perpetrators of dishonesty within custody disputes.”
We rather report on what we hear and the available research (see our previous post above). The President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, when he addressed the Families Need Fathers conference in Bristol in March 2017, acknowledged that such allegations are “one of the greatest vices of the system”. In hostile family conflicts dishonesty is prevalent on both sides. However the Parents With Care have less to lose and much to gain by dishonest claims. This is not helped by the 2013 legislative changes (LASPO) that provide Legal Aid to just the accusing party in family disputes. The law allegedly applies to men and women. Women feature more often, as Professor MacKay’s research showed, because they are most often the Parent With Care. Perhaps, rather than suggesting we are ‘notorious’ you might support our call for better research, transparency and outcome monitoring and for a family justice system that is focused on retaining parental relationships with both mothers and fathers wherever this is safe. There is no shortage of research to show the child welfare benefits of joint parenting whether together or apart.
We can at least agree that it is good that ministers are talking about some of these things and starting to ask questions that may help inform their policy making.
References:
A free download of Professor MacKay’s study can be found at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265346094_False_allegations_of_child_abuse_in_contested_family_law_cases_The_implications_for_psychological_practice
The transcript of The President, Sir James Munby’s address to FNF can be found at: https://fnf.org.uk/news-events-2/public-affairs/meetings-with-sir-james-munby/2-uncategorised/429-munby-transcript-2017
Shared parenting in Sweden summary findings can be found at: https://fnf.org.uk/component/phocadownload/file/215-shared-parenting-in-sweden
See also:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Malin_Bergstroem
and
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268114805_Shared_Physical_Custody_and_Children%27s_Experience_of_Stress
LikeLike
is there a video of Sir James at the FNF ?
LikeLike