Jade's Law: Parents who kill the other parent will have rights to their children removed

[IwantToRetire]

A parent who has been found guilty of murdering the other parent will have their parental rights taken away, the Justice Secretary is expected to announce.

The rules will mean the child's remaining parent will not have influence over what school they attend or if they can go on holiday abroad.

The new rules, set to be introduced as part of the Victims and Prisoners Bill, will create an automatic suspension of parental responsibility from a person who is convicted of the murder or voluntary manslaughter of a person with whom they share parental responsibility.

The court would still consider the best interests of the child through a review stage and a right to apply to have the suspension lifted.

"Today, we are announcing that we will extend whole-life orders to those who have committed the crime but have not yet been sentenced so that more of the most vicious criminals face the punishment they deserve with no hope of ever walking free."

More https://www.itv.com/news/2023-10-02/parents-who-murder-the-other-parent-will-have-rights-to-children-removed

Let's hope this is more than a Party Conference promise and will become fact.

I haven’t heard about this yet. My first thought was how does this relate to women who have killed abusive partners? There are a high number of the women in prison for murder who have gone through long term extreme abuse and have then killed their partner. I’d have to look into it more to know more around what rights most women have around their children after this, I’d think it depends on many factors such as child’s age, the crime itself etc and the general way foster care works. But as many children are removed because of domestic violence (and would be if a parent murdered another) and these children may be released by the courts for adoption (where the birth parent loses parental rights) I’m just wondering how widespread the impact will be? I’d assume it would be for the children who tend to remain in foster care or kinship care. Obviously I know little about this law and so I am probably totally off the mark re thinking of women who kill their partners after abuse. Equally, I see the point in it when an abusive partner retains control over the children via decision making when those children are in foster care. This should be picked up, but it will definitely be being missed for some children.

So the woman who kills her abusive husband will also lose custody of her kids?

Oh great, so that’s where the line is? About right. Men can currently violently abuse their partners and children, rape and viciously abuse through coercion and control and STILL the courts will order child contact (not just my personal experience, but that of 1000s of women - see the government’s own 2020 report, link below). But at least the government wants to set a bar at murder. Progress of sorts I know. But not just depressing - actually dangerous for women going through contact battles right now: “it’s only for murder that the court will stop me seeing MY children” they will say. I guarantee it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/895173/assessing-risk-harm-children-parents-pl-childrens-cases-report_.pdf

Same first thought here.

This was my immediate thought. It could stop women being attacked by their partner from acting in self defence incase they kill them. Women’s rights are being eroded enough as it is.

I recall a case years ago a man killed (?) His wife by nearly decapitating her infront of the children he kept his PR the judge ordered the family to keep in touch with him while he was in prison support contact between the parties etc etc it wasn't considered a crime towards the children because he didn't touch them just you know killed the children in front of them it plays on my mind sometimes

Anyway it's yet another policy that would disproportionately effect women so it will most likely be successful

Yes, absolutely.

It beggars belief that a man who is abusive, violent, a rapist, can still see his children. Its an utterly mad injustice.

I would rather be dead than have to hand my children over to a dangerous man.

This seems a very badly thought out idea.

It should apply to men who abuse the mothers of their children too. It’s too little too late by the tIme they kill them

Also, I keep hearing of cases where a child is conceived through rape, and the women makes the incredibly difficult decision to continue with the pregnancy and to raise the child, only for her rapist and their family to try to gain access to the child!

In the eyes of the law the woman has broken the law regardless of the reason. Sometimes the law is so black and white where I think In cases such as a woman desperate to escape DV or killing her husband maybe only to save her own life as a reaction in that moment (or her children for that matter), the woman should have some consideration. Yes murdered is an awful crime but if someone is about to kill you and/or your children, I’d imagine sometimes you have no other choice in which case losing PR is a stretch. Rightly or wrongly the woman has protected her children. There definitely needs to be more laws to protect women here (or men if it’s the other way round too)

I’ve just found this on the BBC article.

”There will be an exemption for parents who kill their partner in a relationship with a history of domestic abuse.”

But my biggest concern is how much domestic abuse goes unreported or isn’t taken seriously at the time. I can’t help but feel this law won’t really make a huge difference and needs to come in at a much lower point, as others have said. Men (and women, but this happens much less) who use coercive control, rape, attack and commit actual or grevious bodily harm should not have rights over decisions for their children. We need to protect women before they are killed and children from witnessing ongoing abuse.

My first thought was: well they'll kill the kids too, then

Oh, god.

Surely someone somewhere is going to be raising all these points?

"The court would still consider the best interests of the child through a review stage and a right to apply to have the suspension lifted."

It's just creating another step it won't block. Family court think contact with the father is always in the best interests of the child.

As others have said this will just be used against women it won't protect them or their kids

It looks like it's only applicable when the other parent is in prison anyway.
I've never had to consult my absent xp about anything in 15yrs, schools, house moves, passports, school trips abroad. Who is advising these parents to even ask the parent who is in prison? (Maybe I've missed something, already had a stressy morning).

Unfortunately that was where my head went first as well.

Agree with these comments. I think the idea behind the policy comes from the right place but drawing the line at killing clearly disadvantages women who suffer years of abuse and then kill their partner.

If the line were drawn at "less severe" crimes, particularly rape, then it could actually be useful to women because they could use this to stop their abusers controlling them via their children.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66988835

RIP Jade. How tragic for her family.

I wonder if this could be used as a starting point to demand that abusive men can't have control/custody of children?

Family court think contact with the father is always in the best interests of the child.

I struggle to believe that is the case or motivation. If a man is violent or abusive, it can't possibly be in the best interests of the child to have contact.

It seems to me far more about seeing children as somehow the property of fathers

I struggle to believe that is the case or motivation. If a man is violent or abusive, it can't possibly be in the best interests of the child to have contact

@ArabellaScott sadly, that is exactly how family court proceeds and it is built into the 1989 Children’s Act that there is a “presumption” that involvement with both parents will be in the child’s best interests. I think there is some additional wording around “unless proven otherwise” but the MOJ report I posted earlier this morning found that in practice this operates as a very near blanket assumption (as my solicitor told me: it’s assumed unless there has been very serious CSA, and even then, not necessarily). Following that report the gov committed to reviewing the presumption, and there was some hope that cases involving serious domestic abuse would qualify for the presumption being waved. But multiple deadlines have passed for the gov reporting the results of this review and I suspect today’s announcement “mother murderers shouldn’t get to see their kids” yay! Is the last we will hear of this issue from this gov at least. The idea of challenging the assumption is too triggering for too many F4J and MRA types for the gov to take on, and hey, the victims of this tend to be single (and therefore by definition deviant) mothers and their kids, and clearly we are just not important enough to rock the boat over.

I was troubled by this (in OP)

" ... The court would still consider the best interests of the child through a review stage and a right to apply to have the suspension lifted. ... "

As in an ideal world this is where a woman who has killed a violent partner, would retain their right to their children.

But too often even when everyone knows the intent of the law, that men work the system to their advantage.

I wonder if any VAWG organisations have commented.

Not forgetting this hasn't been announced yet, and even if it is no guarantee it will ever happen.

But certainly when and if it taken to the HoC for discussion those with concerns can write to their MP.

In fact it has been formally announced https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jades-law-to-be-introduced-to-better-protect-children

Sorry, should have added this important clause:

The rule will apply to anyone convicted of the murder or voluntary manslaughter of a person with whom they share parental responsibility and would then be reviewed swiftly by a judge to ensure it is in the best interests of the child. An automatic exemption would be put in place in cases where a domestic abuse victim kills their abuser.

Is anyone campaigning on this?

“We welcome today’s announcement that the government is committed to deliver Jade’s law, which will ensure that prisoners who murdered their partner will no longer have parental rights over their children. This is a victory for Jade’s family and friends, who’ve been campaigning tirelessly to end the control and fear that perpetrators continue to exert over children’s lives after carrying out such unthinkable acts of violence.

“Perpetrators of domestic abuse assume power and control over women, and this doesn’t end when the relationship ends. In fact, many survivors report that the abuse can get worse once they’ve left the relationship – including when they are going through child contact proceedings. Despite this, a culture of ‘contact at all costs’ persist in family courts, forcing survivors into potentially dangerous contact with known perpetrators of domestic abuse.

Continues https://www.womensaid.org.uk/womens-aid-statement-in-response-to-governments-plans-to-introduce-jades-law/