Private members Bill going through parliament to bring changes to family law

GenderEqualityAdvocate
I am a father who follows family law court developments closely
I have seen the worst that the family court can do and really feel there is a need to outlaw parental kidnap of children.

Family law courts enable abusive men to cross examine their victims.
That is not permitted in criminal law courts and must change.
The experience of most lone parent families is that men are the absent parent.

The Tories have repeatedly claimed they want to make fathers equal with women in responsibility for their children, but the CSA hasn't been able to force men to do that and neither will this bill.

A family court that unquestionably believes all allegations of domestic abuse. No they don't. Courts rarely believe women when they say they've been abused. Hence why rape convictions are so low. Hence why people like Jimmy Savile abuse girls for decades. Hence how the Rotherham child abuse scandal occurred etc etc.

I don't think most parents' experiences are as you've set out. My experience from quite a few friends is that men walk away from their kids, let them down, refuse to take responsibility and yes don't pay for them.

That's where the law should be focusing. Non payment of child support should be seen as neglect and the offender prosecuted.

If you don't want to read all of that then it might be helpful to see the Guardian summary of it here and the investigation that they did into the issue here and here

I really don't think it's true to say that family courts unquestionably believe all allegations of domestic abuse. If you are interested then here is a recent review of the way that the family courts treat domestic violence by a senior member of the family judiciary here

And women don't have to be beaten to be in abusive relationships which are detrimental to children.

As the law currently stands you can remove your children from the family home and leave the other parent in the dark as to where they are. And why do you think women would do that? Go on, give it a try? Why do you think women would leave the family home with their children and not tell their partner?

Why should NRP's pay under a gender neutral system where parenting was shared equally? Payment should be a thing of the past. Gender your view of the 'single parent problem' and solution seems oddly myopic. Even if these proposals were to be put into law they are hardly going to result in parenting being shared equally (actually she even says that is not what she is trying to do) and a utopia in which all parents provide for their children with no need for maintenance payments. No doubt there are parents who unreasonably obstruct relationships between children and perfectly decent parents and that is a terrible thing. But as others have said a great many others are 'single parents' because the other parent has walked away or cannot be safely involved with the children. Even where both parents are actively involved and mutually supportive it is often not the case that the burden is shared equally as it is often not practical to do so.

If we really want to enforce equal shared parenting then we would have to introduce heavy penalties to force recalcitrant parents to take on the care of their child and to prevent them from moving away from the other parent. Obviously I am not advocating that because a heavy-handed legal approach here is likely to be counter-productive and ineffective. As others have said above, what is really needed is cultural change rather than legal change. I particularly with Dervel's posts on that.

Just to respond to an earlier point you said You are still doubting her credentials? I should be clear that I am in no way doing so, I do not make personal comments about people in this way and would have no grounds to do so here anyway. I am sure she is a well-educated and intelligent person. I was merely saying that there are plenty of similarly educated people with as much, or greater, relevant experience, so for you to suggest that she is in some way right because of this background is unhelpful and I doubt that she would make such a suggestion herself. The proposals should stand or fall on their content not speculation as to whether she is in the top 1% of intelligence.

It is, however, the case that the points in her speech do not seem particularly well-informed or thoughtful. For the reasons I noted above, it it seems that fathers4justice/indigo group have been influential in moulding her speech/bill. It reads very much as a campaigning speech from their perspective. As fathers4justice say in their news story on the issue www.fathers-4-justice.org/2017/03/tory-mp-calls-strict-enforcement-child-arrangement-orders/ the Tories seemed to be committed to similar proposals to those in her speech before they came into office. Once they were in office they then had the family justice review and the benefit of extensive research on the issue. Once they did then they accepted that the criticisms of bias in the family courts were largely unsubstantiated, recognised that the issues were far more complex and pretty much rowed back on the commitments. This has all been subject to independent review, government policy review and legislation in the past few years. Of course one might disagree with the way in which it has been done but to make the same arguments without reference to those findings is odd. It looks as if fathers4justice are influencing her to try to get their campaign back into Parliament. You didn’t answer my question as to whether you are involved with them or the indigo group?

But it does't matter because it won't become law and the Govt is hardly going to pick it up and run with it given that they have recently reviewed the whole thing and have quite a lot on their plate at the moment!

Up to what age can a parent MAKE a child go to the other parent? I mean are we talking bodily picking them up and piling them into a locked car?
I have to say I don't know anyone who has "withheld access" but I knew and know loads of kids who have at various points refused to go.

What happened to "best interests of the child"?

Gender what you say re: solicitors has not been my experience at all. Granted they cost a huge amount of money, but have at every turn both my solicitors repeated the mantra that prolonged court cases are to the detriment of the children. It was only once my exes behaviour became incredibly unreasonable that they presented court as an unfortunate course that needed to be taken

They both advised a conciliatory approach on my part towards my ex, pointed me at mediation and also parenting resources on how to navigate the situation with a view to avoiding court if at all possible.

Throwing mothers in jail is counter productive, that sure as shit isn't going to be good for the children, and whilst in some extreme circumstances it may be necessary I think every step should be taken to avoid that outcome.

I am reminded of that case where the woman in Bristol I think it was fled with her son on the eve of a court date, and she only escaped a custodial sentence as the judge consulted the father who just wanted the whole business over and done with.

There ARE laws on the books already to deal with every parent who wishes to cause parental alienation, and another thing you have to ask the question of what the court is there for? It shouldn't be a place you go to punish your ex. I have been treated pretty shittily by my child's mother, but you know what fixating on that and being a good father are mutually exclusive.

The way men can protect themselves in my situation is to squirrel away money in case of court being a necessity and hit the ground running as soon as you become a father. Don't leave everything to the mother to do, be an active and engaged father and build a relationship of significance with your own children, and not by just by being a Disney dad and doing the fun things, but doctors visits, dentists, focus on their education and fund their hobbies. In fact the one of the most significant things is to encourage the bond they have with the other parent.

I agree with you fathers are a lot more significant in child development and outcome than people realise, but that is a case to be made in wider society and the courts are not the place to do that. Broadly speaking I think the courts have more or less the right attitude. More and more men are stepping up to primary care roles with their children, although still not at the level of women. However THAT is where the meaningful change will take place.

Or parents who think contact is inconvenient because they won't get a weekend lie in? (No he doesn't see them).

What does Suelle propose to do, about about parents who walk out of their children's lives, or promise to see them but not turn up?

Single parent households leave the children at a disadvantage

Well that's quite a sweeping statement.....

This will not become law.
From parliament website 'As this is the last sitting Friday of this parliamentary session, the remaining Bills will make no further progress.'

I agree with meg

Completely agree with those who say that contact should be enforced both ways. There are far too many men walking away from their children with barely a backward glance. They should be made to remain involved and punished properly if they don't- the impact on abandoned children plays out into wider societal impacts that cost all of us in the end.

Equal parenting from the start would be better than her suggestions. And yes, a major cultural change is needed.

just maybe we have a problem with a family law court system that is outdated and still views motherhood as a holier than thou sacred being

Does it though? Isn't it usually more about consistency for the child? So if one parent has been the main carer, the child stays with the main carer, provided the main carer isn't abusive or incompetent.

So many couples separate, and share out the care, to suit both parties without the need for a court. Lots of couples separate and one party walks away not wanting contact or responsibility at all.

Out of all the separations that happen, only a small percent have to go to court. Where a judge then looks at an individual case on its own merits. I'm not sure judges just sit and rattle off that the mother should have the children just because she is the mother.

Cases are complex, with probably lots of 'he said' 'she said' to wade through.

I think a blanket one size fits all, fast track version, could have quite detrimental effects on children.

I'm all for both parents, being responsible parents and actively involved in their child's life. I can't see why anyone would say the opposite.

But with difficult cases it needs to go to a judge to look over all the details and make the right call for the children involved.

I'd had a couple of glasses last night, but when looking for the the thing that pricked my memory, which I think was to do more with some figures in the 80s, not now. I did come across some recent research which I believe is what is used at the moment. Although I could not find the original only current version.

I also came across other figures that suggest in single parent families, it is not solely the family dynamic that can effect the potential of children, but the poverty that can often a companies it. Also the mental health/ addiction/ personality disorders/behaviour norms in the local environment, saying that these are probably factors of a relationship break down in the first place and these would effect a child's potential and mental health whether the parents stayed together or split. Also any major change (as in the split in the first place) can have future detrimental effect on a childs mental health. Forcing 50 50 parenting, would not change that.

There are so many things that can actually effect a child's potential, by singling only one of those factors and saying this is the route cause I think is flawed.

On the boards here I read far more often about resident parents, with agreed contact, where the non-resident parent just doesn't bother to show.

Why shouldn't that be punished if you're planning to punish the resident parent if they block contact? The effect is surely the same?

3 strikes and you're out - fine, 3 times you fail to turn up for agreed contact, and you're sanctioned. Frankly, in non-abusive cases, the idea that if they don't turn up for contact 3 times means they'd be on the hook for residency (your idea that 3 strikes and residency switches) might even be enough to get them to make a firm decision about being in their child's life.

The problem in all of this is your suggestions seem to be ripe for abusers to take advantage of - eg. this 100mile rule idea - abuser are already known for isolating their victims, now, they just have to move the family far enough away that the abused parent isn't allowed to move back to their support network - it's a horrifying thought.

In my opinion, the number 1, most positive thing that the UK can do for children is to make sure that the non-resident parent pays (and that it's recognised as neglect if they don't), and that they don't muck the kids about when it comes to seeing them.