Claire Throssell wins change to law to protect children from abusive parents

[ArabellaSaurus]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz91ng13gqko

'A mother whose sons were killed by their father has said she hopes they would be proud after a decade of campaigning in their names resulted in a promised change in the law on parental contact.
Claire Throssell's sons Jack, 12, and Paul, nine, were killed in a house fire started by their father in October 2014, after he was granted access to the boys.
Ms Throssell, from Penistone, met Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer on Tuesday to discuss changes to the "presumption of contact" law, which assumes children benefit from contact with both parents.
The government has now said it will repeal the law under the Children Act 1989, which Ms Throssell said "will save so many children's lives".
The news came on the 11th anniversary of her sons' deaths.'

Well done, Claire.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-action-to-protect-children-from-abusive-parents

https://womensaid.org.uk/womens-aid-marks-momentous-ministry-of-justice-decision/

We just need the rest of the UK to follow suit.

If parents are thought to be a threat to their child’s safety, involvement in their lives can be restricted, for example through courts ordering supervised contact, involvement limited to written communication, or by ordering that there should be no involvement at all.
I’m sorry this is actually terrible. They’ve given the state carte blanche to stop anyone seeing their children. Think through how this could be misused and weaponised. They have given abusers a vested interest in completely discrediting their victims and making out like they are unstable/the problem. In 10 years time when anyone on a CP plan or anyone accused of alienation by their abuser, or anyone with the wrong CAFCASS/social worker compiling a case for a judge to rubber stamp, has lost all access to their kids, we will look back on this with horror.

How many times have women in total desperation posted on mn because they’re separating and CAFCASS believes the abuser over them due to lack of evidence of abuse and gives the abusive father contact/residence and paints the mother as the problem? And we trust this system to make this law work?!

That is describing the current situation, not the proposed law change. And obviously if there are safeguarding risks to a child's safety, measures must be taken to protect the child.

Surely the judiciary and everyone else involved in this system can be trained in a sensitive and evidence-based way on what would indicate a parent should not be allowed to have contact with a child. Where there is good evidence that one parent has been abusive the presumption should be that he or she should only be offered supervised contact at most.

Final report of the Review:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/presumption-of-parental-involvement-review

What should be done, then? I remember a horrific thread on MN where the mum was desperately trying to stop her young daughter being forced to have contact with her abusive father. It was on record that the father had physically harmed the child, but contact was still being enforced.
How would you stop this?

Well done to Claire. The fight she has done for this after experiencing the biggest possible tragedy is amazing. She's an incredible woman.

It happens quite often, and must be unbelievably awaful for mothers when forced to surrender their children to fathers they know are abusive.

'Earlier this week, the Government also announced plans to automatically restrict the exercise of parental responsibility in cases where a person with parental responsibility has been convicted of a serious sexual offence against any child, and where a child is born of rape'

https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/resource/restricting-parental-responsibility-in-cases-of-abuse-welcome.html

'The Chair of the Bar Council has welcomed new proposals in the Victims and Courts Bill that will automatically restrict parental responsibility for offenders who have been sentenced for sex offences against their own child as “a strong protective measure”.
Commenting, Barbara Mills KC, Chair of the Bar Council and a specialist family law practitioner, said:
“Parental responsibility should not be regarded as an inalienable right which is retained regardless of parental behaviour and actions. Restricting parental responsibility for perpetrators of child sex offences is a strong protective measure for those left behind after acts of violence and abuse within a family.
“The new proposal follows the implementation of Jade’s Law which restricts parental rights in cases of domestic abuse murder. Findings of abuse are not the end of the story but the beginning of a new chapter for the children – a chapter where their caregivers have to be assisted to grapple with building new foundations which cannot be interfered with by the perpetrator of abuse.
“Together these measures demonstrate the critical importance of putting legislation in place to support the family courts and provide it with the tools it needs to deal effectively with cases of domestic abuse, with an eye to the medium and long term.
“The family courts are well placed to prevent future violence and domestic abuse. The government’s laudable aim of halving violence against women and girls will only be realised if the issue is approached as a family law matter, as much as it is a criminal one.”
The measures have been announced as part of wide-ranging legislation that will also give new powers to judges to punish offenders who refuse to attend sentencing hearings, new powers for the Victims’ Commissioner in relation to the Victims’ Code, and increased flexibility for the Director of Public Prosecutions in appointing Crown Prosectors. The Bar Council will be scrutinising the draft bill before commenting on the details of the proposals.'

'Women’s Aid and other advocacy groups have urged that removing the statutory presumption be followed by wider cultural and procedural change within family courts, including engagement with specialist organisations and implementation of prior recommendations aimed at improving risk assessment and safeguarding practice.

The government said the legislative measures will be taken forward in forthcoming family court reform proposals. Further operational detail and implementation timescales have not yet been published'

https://www.socialworktoday.co.uk/News/government-to-repeal-parental-involvement-presumption-to-strengthen-child-protection

Some legal comment on this article:

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/family-law-reforms-prioritise-childrens-safety/5124832.article

Exactly. Usually with something like DV there is more likely to be evidence with injuries, police calls and even WITH evidence access to the child was automatically given to the abusive parent

It's a fair point that the law must be carefully scrutinised for unintended consequences.

But I don't think that means that all attempts to stop abusers from having access to children must be futile.

And how many times have children died as a result of a court giving access??
you really shouldn’t go there!

Such formidable courage in her tireless campaigning, I hope it brings Claire a measure of peace. Her boys should not ever have been in their father’s care 😔

Yes she was so brave. I heard her speak this morning.

CAFCASS. not fit for purpose

women were ordered to give their children over to fathers unsupervised despite the fact the were sexual abusers
thank you Claire 🙌🙌🙌🙌

I think Jack tried to save Paul went back into the fire to drag him out.

they were both in the attic

Jack and paul both knew it was their dad that set all the fires

thank you Claire. You did this to save more children being abused and murdered

Statement from Women's Aid
https://womensaid.org.uk/womens-aid-marks-momentous-ministry-of-justice-decision/

From the statement notes:

What is the legal presumption?
The ‘presumption of parental involvement’ was introduced into law in 2014. It means that, in a contact case between separated parents in the family courts, the court must presume that the continued involvement of both parents in their child’s life is in the child’s best interests.

Why are you campaigning for its removal?
Leading domestic abuse and legal charities, as well as countless survivors, have long campaigned to have the legal presumption of child contact removed. It is the only presumption about what furthers a child’s welfare in family court. It dilutes the court’s focus on the welfare of the child because it places the court in a position where they must presume involvement of a parent is in the child’s best interests unless this can be shown otherwise. With an estimated 60% of cases in the family courts involving domestic abuse, the presumption feeds the pro-contact culture withing the court. This can be extremely dangerous and has led to the preventable deaths of children, as found in our recent ‘19 Child More Homicides’ report.

What a wonderful woman Claire Throssell is. It is so infuriating to see how rational fears expressed by women are constantly dismissed by "officialdom", and the frantic arse-covering that goes on after they're proved right (Sandie Peggie and the Darlington women just the latest iteration of dispiritingly many cases). In her case, the circumstances are incomprehensibly horrific. May her memories of Paul and Jack be a blessing. 💐
Women won't wheesht.