Advertisement
Ok. Call me bitter, but I'm going to post this anyway.
I think that somehow, the law needs to be changed, so that there is a presumption for parents to have contact with their child(ren) when they seperate.
Currently, the law permits contact orders to be made, yet when mothers (or fathers) refuse to cooperate, judges will not enforce the orders they themselves have made.
I'll take a quote here, from the F4J website:
"Parliament's express intention in the 1989 Children's Act was exactly this yet the child's best interest principle has now effectively become the mothers best interest.
A recent judgement by Lord Justice Thorpe severing contact between a child and her father gave the green light to recalcitrant mothers that they could veto contact between children and their fathers if this made them 'anxious or depressed.'
So why is the Lord Chancellor's Department failing to uphold the will of Parliament? Why is it failing families? Why is it failing our children and grandchildren?"
Out of respect for differing circumstances, I'd replace 'mothers' in the above quote with 'resident parents' because I know that when the circumstances are reversed, fathers are just as likely to deny contact.
Still.
What can be done?
I think that somehow, the law needs to be changed, so that there is a presumption for parents to have contact with their child(ren) when they seperate.
Currently, the law permits contact orders to be made, yet when mothers (or fathers) refuse to cooperate, judges will not enforce the orders they themselves have made.
I'll take a quote here, from the F4J website:
"Parliament's express intention in the 1989 Children's Act was exactly this yet the child's best interest principle has now effectively become the mothers best interest.
A recent judgement by Lord Justice Thorpe severing contact between a child and her father gave the green light to recalcitrant mothers that they could veto contact between children and their fathers if this made them 'anxious or depressed.'
So why is the Lord Chancellor's Department failing to uphold the will of Parliament? Why is it failing families? Why is it failing our children and grandchildren?"
Out of respect for differing circumstances, I'd replace 'mothers' in the above quote with 'resident parents' because I know that when the circumstances are reversed, fathers are just as likely to deny contact.
Still.
What can be done?
posted by:
|
United Kingdom
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Parent's rights
Wed, January 7, 2004 - 1:23 AMIsn't CAFCASS meant to help here? -
-
Re: Parent's rights
Wed, January 7, 2004 - 1:35 AMOh yeah. Cafcass. Nice idea.
For those who don't know, CAFCASS stands for Children and Families Court Advisory and Support Services. They're the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's department, and they're basically meant to write reports for Courts to advise them of the best thing to do in any families case.
They're currently subject to a parliamentary enquiry over their practices. Their *entire* managing board got sacked last week.
Again, F4J says:
"- Most CWR's (Cafcass Report Writers) are ex probation offices used to dealing with hardened criminals, not children and their parents.
- Only 1 in 7 of them received any training, of which this consists of a 2 1/2 day course - less than a parking warden.
- There is NO training budget whatsoever.
- There are NO defined guidelines on recommended minimum contact and up until 22 April this year, there was NO complaints procedure.
- NO records or research has been kept on the outcomes for children.
- In effect, an untrained CWR with a background in dealing with hardened criminals can write a report that results in the complete severance of the child/parent relationship with the father having little or no way of redress."
I know that as an organisation, F4J are likely to play up these points when dealing with CAFCASS, but in my own experience, CAFCASS weren't sufficiently trained for what they were meant to be doing, and had no access to resources to help them advise the court.
What I'd rather see, is an organisation with access to Child Psychologists, if needs be, who are properly trained in mediation and social issues. Maybe something a bit more accountable, and with a transparent set of working practices. An ISO 9k approved company has to meet some kind of standards. I don't see any such standards being met at Cafcass. -
-
Re: Parent's rights
Wed, January 7, 2004 - 4:54 AMOk. So I understand that my posts sound like I'm whining away without giving anyone anything to debate ;)
So how about:
- We wipe the slate clean of precedent where family law is concerned. IMHO the reason that judges don't enforce contact orders is because precedent states that to do so would harm the children involved. Parents break contact orders because there's nothing a judge would dare to do to enforce it.
- change the way that seperations and divorces are treated in family courts. Divorces are pretty much treated as an adversarial situation, where one side wins, and the other loses. If a family is to continue to function as two parents who live seperately, this has to change.
- devise some judicial guidelines to provide a decision making framework in support of shared care.
Yes. I'm suggesting we throw parents in jail when they dare to break a contact order.
Anyone else? -
-
Re: Parent's rights
Wed, January 7, 2004 - 6:54 AM> - We wipe the slate clean of precedent
Can we do that? -
-
Re: Parent's rights
Thu, January 8, 2004 - 4:26 AM> Can we do that?
I asked one of the F4J people, since it was them who suggested it. He said:
"That is something that the Australians are asking their Govt to do."
To the question of whether it's possible:
"No idea.
In theory when a new act comes into force it should do this, but it doesn't always happen."
So, a fairly inconclusive answer. But I think it /should/ be possible, since precedent is a fairly poor justification for bad treatment.
-
-
Re: Parent's rights
Fri, January 9, 2004 - 12:47 AM> Yes. I'm suggesting we throw parents in jail when they dare to
> break a contact order.
Might this not be disruptive to the children? I know it's not good for them to be denied contact with the other parent, but putting the resident parent in jail doesn't seem helpful (to the child) either.
True, if I was the parent to be denied contact I'd probably be advocating the death penalty. -
-
Re: Parent's rights
Fri, January 9, 2004 - 12:55 AM> Might this not be disruptive to the children? I know it's not
> good for them to be denied contact with the other parent, but
> putting the resident parent in jail doesn't seem helpful (to the
> child) either.
Welllll..
that's always been the argument used by the Courts to let resident parents off the hook in the past. The point isn't to continuously throw parents in jail, nor to do it for first time offences, or one-offs. But persistent offenders (and they are offenders - breaking a court order is to be in contempt of court) should be shown that a court order is SERIOUS and not to be mucked around with.
Truancy is rewarded with stiff penalties. Parents have been known to go to prison because their kids don't attend school.
Perhaps I *am* biassed (as your second point suggests :P) but it doesn't seem like any less serious an offence, to me.
In other countries (handwave - but Denmark comes to mind) they enforce these contact orders with harsher penalties than a slap on the wrist and a telling off. Parents don't break them, as a result. Isn't that the point of judicial sanctions? To discourage law-breaking? -
-
Re: Parent's rights
Fri, January 9, 2004 - 1:11 AM> Truancy is rewarded with stiff penalties. Parents have been
> known to go to prison because their kids don't attend school.
In my extensive experience of this (I heard an interview on R4 once), although the parent went to jail it was the child that took notice of the penalty. The child had more control over whether she went to (and stayed in) school or not (unless the intent is for parents to sit in classes with their children), and the penal sentence made them realise the situation was serious. -
-
Re: Parent's rights
Fri, January 9, 2004 - 1:16 AMSure, in this case it /is/ the child who should realise the gravity of the situation. My point was more to illustrate that the same legal system is willing to impose sanctions for a LESS applicable and justifiable reason than the one I'm suggesting.
I think you're agreeing ;) -
-
Re: Parent's rights
Fri, January 9, 2004 - 1:36 AM> I think you're agreeing ;)
I think you're right.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
