I am very pleased that our Government is set to amend the Children Act (1989) in order to protect the Human Right of a child to benefit from maintaining a meaningful relationship with both its parents, post separation/divorce.
This was an original intention of the Children Act, but has been misinterpreted by the judiciary (specifically by Lady Butler-Sloss).
I have e-campaigned vigorously over recent years for the acceptance of the principle that a child's paramount interests are served by the Courts giving due regard to maintaining its meaningful relationship with both its parents.
Sadly, to date, the judiciary has remained more focused upon the wishes and feelings of the so-called 'primary carer' (usually mum) and has relegated the importance of the involvement of the de-facto 'secondary carer' (usually dad). It has remained stubbornly wedded to the 1960's and 70's ideology that children need the nurturing of their mother and the financial support of their father: as we know, today's parenting is very different indeed!
There have been well-publicised cases in which the senior judiciary has recognised this shortcoming in the law, but has been either unable or unwilling to act.
Outspoken High Court Judge, Sir Paul Coleridge has spoken of being powerless to prevent good fathers being excluded from their children's lives.
In the reserved judgment of Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50, the former President of the Family Division, Sir Nicholas Wall broadcast (and later reiterated in a Family Affairs interview) his carefully considered view that Relocation Law ? in the form of Payne v Payne ? ascribed too great a weight to the wishes of the primary carer and relegated the harm done to a child due to the loss of its meaningful relationship with the left-behind parent.
Regardless of his concerns, however, Wall applied the very legal principles of Payne v Payne which he had criticised! He was unwilling to go against a legal precedent which plainly failed to serve the best interests of the children in that case.
With the forthcoming amendment to the Children Act, the judiciary will now be legally obliged to give due and proper weight to maintaining meaningful relationships between children and both their parents.
It is very hard to see how the principles of Payne v Payne can now survive. Plainly, a child which has been removed thousands of miles from its home country cannot easily benefit from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the left-behind parent. I expect this beastly law to be consigned to the history books before too long. A law which effectively permits a mother to cut out ? like a cancer ? a father from the life of his child is utterly barbaric and has no place in 21st Century Britain.
Regards
Bruno D'Itri