Tyr - quite right about the criminal/family court distinction. My error, sorry.
But, I think the date of the rape within marriage act is important. The Children's Act was created at a time when men were still, in part, considered to have rights over the bodies of women. Context is crucial.
You can argue that parental responsibility is supposed to be about the rights of the child, and sure that was the idea behind the introduction of the concept. But how come in practice this seems to mean more gains for men than women? And more punishments for women than men?
It is incredibly rare for parental responsibility to be revoked and steps have been taken to make it easier for unmarried fathers to gain it. Residency granted to men is on the increase (not in itself a bad thing). Men can veto decisions made by female primary carers (again, not in itself a bad thing), non-payment of maintenance rarely results in any punishments or being made to pay up, a man who consistently misses/changes contact arrangements has no sanctions whatsoever.
OTOH, women can have their own lives continually messed about by being stood up at contact times or having them changed at a moment's notice. If she withold it because she's fed up of having her child upset and her life made more difficult, she can be taken back to court (and have to pay for the privilege with the revocation of legal aid for family law) and can actually be imprisoned. Meanwhile, access to the CSA is being made harder and maintenance is being taxed, relegating more women to informal arrangements in which 60% of cases see no maintenance paid whatsoever.
If we're really applying the law in terms of what's best for the child, how come this is going on?
Also frequent cases of spurious allegations - Spurious? According to whom? Insufficient evidence is not the same as false. Given that DV affects 1 in 4 women and that single mothers are a third more likely (I think, though will have to check) to have experienced DV than other women, I think the majority of women who claim abuse in the family courts are telling the truth.
Courts take allegations of DV very seriously indeed and err on the side of caution if there is the suggestion of risk to the child.
No they don't. They do when there is an overwhelming burden of proof, but this is rarely the case. That doesn't mean it's not happening though. Granted that's not the court's fault, but it's something our politicians should be addressing. We need to determine other ways of assessing a man's risk to his child and/or ex-partner, such as psychological evaluation. Expensive and difficult? Yes. But worth it? Absolutely. As a tax payer I'd far rather see taxes spent on this than introducing married couples tax allowances, which will do nothing to diminish DV or protect women and children. And let's not forget that only a small number of separating couples are going to be calling for this. Most couples manage to sort out residency issues without bitter court battles, so the country is hardly likely to be bankrupted by tens of thousands of women claiming their partners are abusive.
Furthermore, it's time we stopped this artificial idea that an abuser can be a good father. He can't. A child who is exposed to DV is at risk, even if the child him/herself is not the target. A man who abuses his partner is a risk to a child. He is not a good father even if he's never hit or otherwise abused the child. The harm he does to the child by abusing that child's mother should not be underestimated. Therefore, IMO, the rules should be the same as those applied if the man is known to pose a risk directly to the child. That is not the case currently.