Shared care proposals covering England and Wales - your views needed

[flippinada]

I thought this would be a good place to share this as it's an issue which affects a lot of lone parents.

Anyway, the government has issued a consultation paper on changing the law to introduce a legal presumption of shared parenting (ie 50/50 care) on separation as a result of the demands made by fathers? rights groups.

This will have profound safety and welfare impacts for children and their mothers who have experienced domestic violence from fathers/partners and your views need to be heard.

The details can be accessed here: cooperative parenting following family separation

Great idea!!

I think shared care is great. The concerns over safety of children will result in different arrangements being made as in any situation of child welfare concerns and issues.

But for children who have 2 good parents who want to be involved 50:50 is a good starting point.

Where violence is present from mother, father or both parents (meaning one or both parents pose a risk) then shared care is not going to happen.

And in reality if a parent is a risk that risk doesn't disappear if the contact is every other weekend only.
Suppervised contact, contact centres will still operate for situations that need them

In Scotland so can't respond as it won't affect us, but just to say the document clearly states that there will not be a presumption of an equal split of time (50/50) and there will not be any starting point for the courts WRT time spent with each parent - it will still be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Not very settling for kids being shunted around beyween two sets of rules, not a relaxed life. Imagine going to school A monday to Wednesday lunchtime, then School B Wednesday afternoon onwards, it would feel like that.

Yes, the 50/50 but isn't an indication if time spent with each parent, it just means there is a presumption that both parents are equals.

Apparently it is done this way in Australia and works well

We do 50-50 now it works find.

We've always done shared-care, but we never saw one parent as more the main-parent than the other.

I think starting from a point of 50/50 care is a great idea. It won't be ideal in some situations and as long as that is taken into account on a case by case basis then it sounds like a good plan

I read it that way too pessimist - the underlying premise being proposed seems to be what is currently known as shared residency which is very different from a 50:50 split of care. In principle, shared residency, where neither parent is solely responsible for the DCs day to day care, seems like the most effective model.

The problem is, it's all very well the court ordering two parents to communicate and co-operate, but what if they can't?
How can a shared care order be enforced if one parent excludes the other from a decision about Internet access, ear piercing or school travel plans, for instance? The excluded parent often doesn't know about it until after the fact

In all honesty, I don't see how two parents who can't agree on where their child lives on which day can ever be expected to effectively co-parent - by definition if the decision has to be made by court then one or both of the parents are unable to sensibly discuss, compromise and co-operate. Nobody can make one parent value the other's role in their child's life. I just don't see how shared/co-parenting can be enforced.

X-post NADM. I agree with your second paragraph basically.

It's a starting point for separating couples, doesn't need to be legally enforced as such, it's a change in the way of thinking!

At present, is it not always assumed that the 'mothers rights' mean the dc are theirs..... And they 'allow' the dad access, and use it as a means of punishment and control ( some cases,not all, but enough for men to make a stand on this)

Just look at a few threads here on mumsnet where contact blocking mothers are posting.

When parents end up in court, then there is most likely a real failure in being able to parent that predates the legal process being begun.
Look at the number of people who post on here re selfish partners/exes who put their own needs above those of their children and for whom that disregard of the DCs is a reason for separation.
The parents who just drifted apart and agreed how to balance everyone's needs after separation are the ones who don't resort to the court.
The things such as PIPs courses are lovely in theory, but IME they make you aware of what one or both of you don't do together or separately in regard to the DCs and working out a separated parenting arrangement.
Seeing as the courts don't and can't do anything to ensure that a NRP parent takes up contact take and pulls their weight in bringing up children then the position will always be one-sided. The RP can't go to talk and say ex is being unreasonable by not taking a bigger share in childcare or whatever.
And as for cases when DA has occurred then how on earth do the courts expect the abuser to suddenly turn round and be non-abusive, responsible and so on.
If the government expects better parenting after a breakup then perhaps more emphasis should be put on understanding parenting before it happens.
We have sex education, we have courses on giving birth but very little on bringing up children, dealing with the stresses of early parenthood and thinking about how to cope with a broken family before it happens.
It's still about an "I want" mentality from parents rather than working out in each individual case what is best for the DCs based on what went on before and what can be put in place in the future as needs change and parents situations change.

Blackberryice - it is wonderful that you have managed such an amicable arrangement that you say is working well for everyone but you have to look outside your own situation and have some empathy surely for those who are not lucky enough like you to be able to have what seems like the perfect arrangement.
A shift in thinking is one thing but forcing something on vulnerable men and women is something else.. oh yes and the children, do they not get a say? should they not be kept safe? - their needs have to come first surely.
Calling anyone who has concerns over contact `a contact blocking mother' I feel is unhelpful and dangerous.

Sorry Stru - I think you make a very valid point regarding what went on before' and individual cases needing to be looked at individually. Every child is different and so is their situation what is right for one may not be right for another, especially when you take into consideration their circumstances before' what ever is now being discuss/agreed/ordered about them.

It is the only fair starting point. Of course everyones experiences are different and there are some fathers who behave unreasonably and use their children as a weapon to get back at the mother, but there are also some mothers who do the same. Courts ultimately will, Im sure, continue to think of the right thing for the child, and in many cases this will be staying with one parent for most of the time, to make it easier with school etc. But there is no reason this has to be the mum.

There is no reason it has to be the mum at all - quite right.
What I don't want to happen is anyone who doesn't do shared care left feeling they have failed or they are being forced to do it no matter what the circumstances. If it can encourage people (of both sexes) not to feel just a day a week is enough then it would be a good thing. But I do feel sorry for any child who has to keep moving from one place to another under any circumstances. I think having one home is important, I would hate to have two home I moved between on a day to day basis - would you?
I think residency and ` equal shared care' are two different things and very difficult to achieved for many reasons, some not related to anyone doing anything wrong.

Let's be quite clear the consultation isn't about equal 50:50 shared parenting time. The Government have rejected 50:50 shared time and the ­object­ive is to introduce legislation so children "benefit from the continued involvement of both their parents, where this is safe and in their best interests.

This doesn't actually change very much. Having Parental Responsibility already gives both parents equal responsibility and rights to carry out those responsibilities. Apart from statute law the law is made by judgments in the higher courts which binds the lower courts to make the same ruling in similar circumstances. This is called case law and there is already well established case law going back some 20 years or more that a relationship with both parents is usually in the interests of children.

The consultation is about the wording of the proposed legislation and the the problem I have is all the options can be misinterpreted.

OPTION 1 - The wording is awkward and hard to understand. There is a risk of misinterpreting "that the welfare of the child concerned will be furthered by involvement in the child's upbringing of each parent of the child " and raising an expectation of a right to an equality of time and increased litigation which the the Government has said it wants to avoid.

OPTION 2 - "fullest possible involvement" is open to interpretation. Introducing a new competing principle could undermine the paramount principle of the welfare of the child.

OPTION 3 - The same position as now and far removed from the Government's stated ­object­ives. Potential for increased litigation about the definition of "starting point."

OPTION 4 - It's difficult to measure "best relationship possible" and could be interpreted as meaning most and quantity of the relationship or quality.

I think there will be an increase in applications because the concepts are open to interpretation and misunderstanding . They will just create fodder for warring parents (or lawyers on their behalf) to argue about.

The Family Justice Review's recommendation to do away with the terms "contact" and "residence" to prevent the sense of winning and loosing will be undermined if less well defined concepts are introduced instead.

The consultation also deals with enforcement of contact with the focus almost entirely on cases where the parent with care deliberately obstructs the child's relationship with the other parent. Contact also breaks down because of the behaviour of the other parent, both parents and even the children may be implicated. The consultation paper ignores the fact that enforcement measures introduced in December 2008 were intended to be directed partly against the parent with the minority of care who will not comply and commit to contact arrangements and are rarely, if ever, used even though inconsistent and unreliable contact arrangements have a negative impact on children.

"benefit from the continued involvement of both their parents, where this is safe and in their best interests.
A lot of legislation and information provided by support organisations uses the word `continued' how are cases treated when the child has never known one parent and they are say 7 ! and they apply to court? is this covered under the new consultation.

The consultation paper ignores the fact that enforcement measures introduced in December 2008 were intended to be directed partly against the parent with the minority of care who will not comply and commit to contact arrangements and are rarely, if ever, used even though inconsistent and unreliable contact arrangements have a negative impact on children. - well said a topic close to my heart

Avenueone... No, my ex has zero contact. He was dangerous at the point of court case. Judge issued a section 91(14) to stop more applications. So no more court for me

It was a 2-3 year journey and I heard some shocking stories on the way. It's the tut for tat contact blockers who make it so difficult for us parents with genuine concerns to be heard!

Gotcha blackberry thanks for clarifying - I am with you on that.

this makes for an interesting read www.maypole.org.uk/blog/2012/08/shared-parenting-should-the-children-act-1989-be-amended/

All they need to do is look at the Australian experience. Not good. A presumption of shared parenting made things much worse for the children involved in bitter parental disputes.

shared care is the way to go, with the split of time done depending on individual circumstances.

20 years ago my brother had to go to court for access (as it was then known) to his daughter . I never forgot his female barrister telling him that by far the biggest reason she had parents (fathers making up the vast majority) in court seeking access or a change to access was directly related to jealousy i.e contact had been stopped by the mother or drastically reduced because she had become jealous- usually of the new partner. Given human nature i expect little has changed. Who could not be moved by Bob Geldof describing his pain at the loss of his daughters? and how it felt to be able to hear them through the front door of his old home but not be allowed to see them? and look what happened there!

If someone is a danger to their children then there have to safety measures in place, which there will be. This is just about taking away the presumption that the mother should have sole residency of the children with her allowing the father time to see his own children, or looking at it another way, allowing her children to spend time with their father.

I've read varying reports on how the Australian shared-care model works.

Some say it does, some say it doesn't.

There is no presumption that mothers have sole residence. What happens is that in 90% of cases the mother is the primary carer pre split so goes on being the primary carer post split. that is what the child is used to.

The most difficult contact cases are difficult because of the pyschological problems of one or both parents. These are not legal issues. The law is already perfectly clear - it is the child's right to have relationship with both parents, provided it is safe for the child.

you are not going to make hostile jealous mothers less hostile or jealous by tinkering with the wording of the Children Act, just as you are not going to make useless selfish fathers start caring and contributing for their children.

The Australian research makes very grim reading for those children caught up in the most hostile parental battles. A presumption of shared care made things much worse for them, increasing the length of time battles were fought and the degree of hostility within those battles.