Press Releases

Families Need Fathers (FNF) is greatly encouraged by the Government’s commitment to Shared Parenting and a review of family law. This has the potential to make a huge difference to separated families across Britain.

We are pleased with this bottom-line commitment to “encourage Shared Parenting from the earliest stages of pregnancy – including the promotion of a system of flexible parental leave;” however this is just the beginning. FNF looks forward to being involved in the debate to determine how best to encourage shared parenting and legal reform. The next essential step is a legal presumption of Shared Parenting.

“Time is ticking. Children are losing out on a loving relationship with their parents every hour and will continue to do so until these proposals have an actual effect.” Becky Jarvis, Policy Officer for FNF.

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

• Brian Binley is to present Shared Parenting Bill in the House of Commons
• The Bill would make it much easier for both parents to stay in a child's life following separation or divorce

Brian Binley, Conservative MP for Northampton South, today presents to the House of Commons a Bill on Shared Parenting. It would make it much easier for both parents to stay in a child's life following separation or divorce. It would also provide appropriate safeguards in the minority of cases where shared parenting is not the best solution.

There is abundant evidence that a child's chances in life are greatly improved if both parents continue to be involved significantly in their lives following separation or divorce. They 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.

Currently the law too often has a divisive impact on families, treating one parent as the sole carer and the other as the sole financial provider. The reality is very different. Very often both parents want to play a full role in the child's life, and are well able to do so, but the law prevents this.

Shared parenting legislation is increasingly common elsewhere in the world. Australia, France, Denmark, Belgium and a number of US states are examples. Australia has had such legislation since 2006 and recent research shows the benefits are already starting to emerge.

Brian Binley said “Shared Parenting legislation is vitally important for all involved, especially the children. Very often Court Orders are made without the knowledge of the importance of a father’s involvement and my Bill will make sure that neither parent is shut out from the child’s life when sadly a relationship breaks down. I don’t need to underline the importance of both parents in a child’s life. A significant proportion of the social problems in today’s society are a result of when a child doesn’t have the love and support of both parents where safe. I hope that this bill will go some way to help this, which will only be good for society.”

Becky Jarvis, Policy Officer of Families Need Fathers, commented "the Bill takes account of experience elsewhere. We need Shared Parenting legislation urgently (and comparable legislation elsewhere in the UK). The UK is falling behind the rest of the world. We need family law fit for the 21st century."

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

• Family justice system failing children caught up in conflict

• Groundbreaking seminar on how to better manage cases of children unreasonably resistant to parental contact

Some of the failings of the family justice system in this country have been well documented over the last few years. High conflict and intractable cases are not being well managed by the family justice system and more needs to be done to educate those dealing with such cases to better help the children caught up in the conflict and support the parents to achieve better outcomes for their children.

Families Need Fathers (FNF) and Jewish Unity for Multiple Parenting (JUMP) are pleased to launch a landmark, high level multidisciplinary seminar on 16th June 2010, hosted by Andrew Selous MP in the House of Commons. This seminar is groundbreaking in providing a platform for a leading international Professor of Family Law and highly regarded UK Deputy District Judge at the Principal Registry of the Family Division in London to discuss these issues.

Julius Hinks, FNF Director of Communications said “the current Coalition Government has made a commitment to review the family justice system in their programme for Government published on 21 May 2010. We hope that the review will take on board the need for better case management in these most difficult cases, particularly affecting children at risk of being alienated from one of their parents. This is not a gender specific issue as fathers as well as mothers can negatively influence the children from engaging with their other parent following high conflict family breakdown."

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

• FNF’s proposals for public spending in family policy would lead to significant savings over the comprehensive spending review (CSR) period.
• Encouraging Shared Parenting will lead to less pressure on the family courts and related services, thus leading to savings.

Today, FNF’s CEO, Craig Pickering writes to Chancellor George Osborne with proposals for public spending in family policy that would lead to significant savings – in the tens of millions of pounds range - over the CSR period.

FNF welcomes the Coalition Agreement’s positive reference to encouraging shared parenting – wherever it is in the best interests of the child, as it usually is, both parents are fully involved in the child’s life following separation or divorce. This should lead to less pressure on the family courts and related services, thus leading to savings. The family justice system is broken and expensive. Currently the Ministry of Justice estimates that the cost of the family justice system is £800 million a year. The Centre for Social Justice estimates that the costs of family breakdown are running at £20-24 billion. Every year, the cost to the individual tax payer is estimated to be £680-820. Swingeing increases in fees for litigants in the family courts have just been announced.

FNF has three key proposals:

First, we would like to see Cafcass, the service that advises judges in family law cases, slimmed down and re-focused. This would add value, for it would both allow such claims to be investigated more carefully and remove a major source of delay in cases which do not concern such claims.

Second, the legal aid system needs to be reformed to ensure that one parent is not able to spin out court proceedings so as to cut off the children from the other parent. Such tactics are all too often successful. Approximately a quarter of the £2.2 billion legal aid budget is spent on family cases and this has been slowly increasing. Expenditure on Family Graduated Fees Scheme cases is now £26 million per year higher than it was 5 years ago – rising by over 30% from £74 million to nearly £100 million. In 2007 the National Audit Office calculated that the average saving in legal aid terms of a ‘mediated case’ compared to a ‘non-mediated case’ was £1,020 in cases involving child residence, ‘contact’ and the like. The same report showed that in 2004 – 2006 only 20% of those applying for legal aid had attempted mediation. 

Third, we propose encouraging parents to make out of court settlements via mediation and parenting courses. These would be a cost to the public purse, but we believe that overall our package would improve the lives of the children of separated families and help reduce the Government’s deficit.

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

• Families Need Fathers calls for action to displace Payne v Payne [2001] 1 FLR 1052 by the Supreme Court, as the guiding case on relocation as a matter of urgency.

Relocation is a major cause of distress for the child and the parent left behind and it is likely to result in a complete loss of contact between the “non-resident parent” and their children. The leading authority in relocation cases is still Payne. The premise behind Payne v Payne is that not allowing the primary carer to take their child to live in another country will have an effect on the primary carer’s psychological wellbeing and hence the child's.

 There is a growing consensus among Judges, notably the President of the Family Division (Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50) and most recently Mr Justice Mostyn (F v M [2010] EWHC 1346) that a review of Payne v Payne is needed.  Mr Justice Mostyn has argued that Payne rewards “selfishness and uncontrolled emotions". Family Law professionals also agree that its time is up.

Lord Justice Thorpe,who delivered the leading opinion in Payne,told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme yesterday (30 June 2010) that there is a need to “re-evaluate”.

Becky Jarvis , Policy Officer says

“we know of cases where children as a result of Payne v Payne have been removed from one of their parents, their wider family, their school and their friends. It is our experience that the hard line taken in Payne v Payne has been followed, albeit with misgivings, by judges up and down the country. We see too many children separated from parents. If the consensus among judges is that, at best, Payne v Payne is out of date then this needs to be revisited as a matter or urgency. Even the judge who made that judgement thinks it is time to look at it again”. 

“We understand that,after separation,life has to move on but we know that there are cases in which the primary carer decided to move thousands of miles away with the explicit aim of making a relationship with the other parent impossible. Neither parent should have a veto on the life choices of the other, but it is our strong view that the court needsto investigate the real motives behind relocations and act to protect the best interests of the children and their right to meaningful relationships with both parents and their wider families.”

Michael Robinson of the Custody Minefield commented “LJ Thorpe talks of the need for uniformity and convention, and that is the problem. He misses that the criticism of his guidance in Payne v Payne does not centre on the Family Division of the Courts being out of step with other commonwealth courts (which it is), but on its continued failing to take into account a compelling and overwhelming body of child welfare related research which directly contradicts his guidance.”

What do you think?

Send us feedback!