Press Releases

Can Skype be a substitute for a meaningful, loving relationship between a child and a parent? This is the absurd question being asked after The President of the Family Courts, in a Supreme Court ruling, maintained that a child could be removed to Australia by their mother and their relationship with their father could be maintained satisfactorily via Skype, despite the father’s appeal that the move would destroy the children’s life with their paternal family.

Last year Sir Nicholas Wall indicated that there was a case for law in this area to be reviewed; however in this judgment Sir Nicholas appears to have made a U-turn. A compelling body of research exists, published by leading academics, psychologists and educationalists, highlighting a risk of harm to children when separated from one parent. This research is routinely ignored by the courts.

Sir Nicholas went on to state the courts will continue to follow guidance first set in the 1970s, despite this guidance being directly challenged by contemporary research.

Craig Pickering, Chief Executive of Families Need Fathers said “despite much criticism by charities, MPs and leading members of the legal profession, the Lord Justice of Appeal refuse to recognise children's needs and rights in relocation cases, and expose children to known harm. A loving and full relationship cannot be maintained via Skype. No parent can carry out their parental responsibilities simply via this technology. ”

In an event at the House of Commons in November 2010, organised by Families Need Fathers, Ann Thomas, Managing Partner of the International Family Law Group, said "How can we, in the English legal profession, have gone so wrong, have failed so many children, have inadvertently engaged in gender discrimination for almost two generations....”

Families Need Fathers disputes Sir Nicholas’s assertion in this recent judgment that relocation cases are determined on facts. Michael Robinson who heads the Relocation Campaign said “The assumptions which underpin judicial reasoning in these cases have not once been supported by expert findings in over 40 years.  The court decides the outcome in relocations based on a 1970’s view of family life which has no relevance two generations later. Most concerning is the court’s refusal to consider expert evidence which contradicts its flawed and out-of-date reasoning. If the courts accept the expert research findings, they must also accept they have subjected thousands of British children to harm”.

Despite assurances that the Family Justice Review would consider the 15 academic research studies which highlight a risk of psychological, educational and emotional harm from relocation, the Review’s interim report published last week made no mention of this much criticised area of family law.

Notes to Editors;

More information is available from the following links:

The published judgement: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/345.html

http://www.thecustodyminefield.com/factsheets/relocationcampaignnews.com

http://www.thecustodyminefield.com/Reports/FamilyLaw-Relocation_The_Need_For_Reform.pdf

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

More and more parents share the care of their children after separation and divorce, an arrangement which is ignored and belittled by the 2011 Census. This is not only insulting and neglectful, but it may skew the provision of services available to separated parents and their children. It could also inaccurately represent the number of children living in the UK.

Separated families are instructed to include their child only on the questionnaire of the parent with whom they spend the majority of their time, and to be included as a ‘visitor’ at the other parent’s address if they are staying overnight there on 27th March 2011. Parents who divide parenting arrangements equally following separation are instructed to include the child only at the address where they are staying overnight on 27th March 2011.

It is insulting to ask parents of children who stay in their home for a significant part of the year not to acknowledge their children’s existence, or label them merely as ‘visitors’. The insensitive handling of these parents in the Census merely propagates a harmful and outdated ‘winner takes all’ view of parenting arrangements.

Becky Jarvis, Director of Policy, said, “The 2011 Census neglects the significant minority (11%, according to recent research (1)) of separated couples who adopt shared parenting arrangements, dividing care for their children more or less equally. Shared parenting has rapidly grown in popularity over the past 15 years, as academic research and public attitudes alike have increasingly recognised the importance for children of both parents taking an active and meaningful role in their care wherever appropriate. The disregard of separated couples with children by the Census, regardless of the nature of parenting arrangements, bears little resemblance to the complexity of trends clear to those with even a passing interest in families”.

John, a father from Banstead, said, “When the Census hit my doorstep, I was desperately searching for the box that related to my family’s living arrangement. I was bemused and bewildered that shared parenting was not recognised.  My kids live with me half of the time. I rang the helpline, who said that I should say that they live me with if they are staying on the 27th March. I was appalled!”

The mission statement of the Census is to provide “a detailed snapshot of the population and its characteristics”, in order to identify their needs. By failing to take account of parenting arrangements, it is difficult to see what critical utility the Census will be able to provide in the provision of services for these parents and children.

Due to confusion, and indeed principle, a proportion of parents who share the care of the children are both likely to state that their children live with them. Considering the number of children who experience divorce and separation, this could have disastrous consequences for the accuracy of the Census data on families.

(1) Problematic Contact After Separation and Divorce? A National Survey of Parents, Peacey, V. and Hunt, J., London, One Parent Families/Gingerbread, p19., 2008. See also I'm Not Saying It Was Easy. Peacey, V. and Hunt, J., London, One Parent Families/Gingerbread, 2009

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

The Family Justice Review Panel recommends enhancing “the regard given to the status of shared parental responsibility” and introducing a statement into the Children Act 1989, reinforcing the importance of the child continuing to have a meaningful relationship with both parents.

Craig Pickering, CEO of Families Need Fathers, said, “The report contains a lot of good ideas, for example on judicial continuity and fast-tracking at least some cases. If it had gone further – especially on a presumption of shared parenting (not the same as a 50/50 split of time spent with each parent) – we would have a family law system that genuinely encourages both parents to play a significant role in their child’s life following separation or divorce.”

We are a long way off understanding how these proposals, if implemented, would work in practice and whether they would achieve an environment where post separation parenting is shared. For example, this week it has been reported that a significant relationship with a father could be maintained over thousands of miles via Skype. Enshrining a presumption of shared parenting in UK law would be a more certain way to achieve the aim of the reforms proposed by the Review Panel.

The proposals rightly focus on changing the culture in favour of shared parenting, by:

·         Removing the concepts of ‘contact’ and ‘residence’, which do not relate to the realities of parenting. This is a huge step forward, but an explicit presumption that shows, as is usually the case, that both parents must be significantly involved in a child’s life wherever appropriate, would be a much better guide to the courts on what the best interests of the child really are. In legal terms, it would flesh out, without compromising, the paramountcy principle.

·         Strengthening judicial continuity, to prevent, for example, 10 judges dealing with one case.  However, we question why it is just in complex cases that judicial continuity is necessary, as we strongly believe it is needed across the board.

·         Helping separating parents to work out their arrangements in the best interests of the child, for example through an online information hub.

·         Giving more weight to parenting agreements.

·         Offering swift action when a court order is breached, so that judgments can be enforced in a way that keeps a child in touch both parents.

·         Information and rapidly-acting dispute resolution promoting shared parenting.

The proposals will need further debate, and leave some unanswered questions, for example how Cafcass will operate within a new Family Justice Service. But on the face of it they are a step forward to promoting shared parenting, even if not a big enough one

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

A United Nations report launched today challenges many of the current practices and institutional presumptions that tend to exclude rather than include fathers. The report entitled Men in Families by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs is co-authored by the co-director of the University of East Anglia's Centre for Research on the Child and Family. This report is clearly consistent with Article 9 of United Nations Convention of the Right’s of the Child, that the child has a right both parents after separation and divorce.

The report recognises the need of effective public policy that is supportive of men’s involvement in their families. It highlights that men, like women, are an asset to family life and that their absence is detrimental to child development. One of the most valuable aspects of the report is the acknowledgement that much more needs to be done to ensure the recognition of the value that fathers bring to the lives of children.

We are, however, concerned with the report’s generalised recasting of fatherhood as a series of temporary relationships. We know that in the UK 11% of parents share the care equally of their children after separation and divorce.

“Child outcomes are significantly improved by a meaningful relationship with both parents. This cannot be achieved by a temporary relationship but by shared parenting. Many more fathers would share the parenting given the opportunity and the support. We do need to put an end to defining motherhood and fatherhood against each other as carer and breadwinner. We simply cannot define fatherhood as a temporary relationship. This is not fair for the child or either parent,” commented Becky Jarvis, FNF Director of Policy.

Notes for editors:

You can access the full report here http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/docs/men-in-families.pdf

Article 9 of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child;

3. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests.

Web link: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r025.htm

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

Charlie Elphicke MP is presenting, today, a Ten Minute Rule Bill on shared parenting. He has been an MP for less than a year and is already inundated with correspondence from constituents desperate to have a relationship with their children after divorce and separation.

His Bill recognises that children should have a right to both parents playing a significant role in their upbringing after separation and divorce. Mr Elphicke is a father of two and understands how important both parents are to the wellbeing of children. There is abundant evidence that a child's chances in life are greatly improved if both parents continue that involvement. The children stand a better chance of getting educational qualifications, of getting a job and remaining in employment and of staying out of prison than children who do not have two active parents.

Elphicke said “The letters all tell the same story; that the family law system is failing children and parents alike. There is growing consensus that a presumption of shared parenting is necessary, in the House and throughout society in general. I hope that this Bill will go some way towards highlighting the issue.”

Craig Pickering, CEO of FNF said “I am very glad that Charlie is contributing to this debate. The Government’s review of family justice will affect children and parents for decades to come.” 

What do you think?

Send us feedback!