Gingerbread and Family and Parenting Institute welcome the government’s reaffirmation that the welfare of the child should remain the paramount consideration in the family justice system. However, it is deeply troubling that in its response to the Family Justice Review the government lays out plans to introduce legislation which will, in effect, undermine this principle by inserting an additional statement in law. This will fundamentally compromise the ability of the family courts to focus on the breadth of issues that contribute to a child’s ongoing welfare after family separation.
Children in separated families benefit from good quality relationships with both parents, where it is safe to do so. It is vital that courts are able to make decisions based on what is in the best interests of children in each case.
Introducing a new statement in legislation will add a layer of complexity to resolving disputes over children. It risks polarising parents at a time when they should be striving to set aside their differences. It will encourage parents to focus on what they want, rather than seeking a resolution rooted in their children’s welfare.
Contrary to the government’s aims of diverting families away from adversarial legal proceedings, this risks increasing litigious actions and detracting from a child’s best interests. The courts already operate on a pro-contact basis and seek to secure arrangements that promote a child’s ongoing relationship with both parents after separation in the majority of cases.
Legislation is not the best way to get more fathers engaged with their children. Cooperative parenting needs to be established within couple families and early in a child’s life. Encouraging the take-up of parental leave and flexible working options would help parents juggle the demands of paid employment with caring responsibilities. Family services that target fathers as well as mothers would foster parenting knowledge, skills and confidence in both parents. It is these policies that would help parents to share the care of their children successfully in the event of a separation.
Fiona Weir, Chief Executive of Gingerbread, commented:
“This announcement does a profound disservice to children experiencing family separation. Introducing legislation that, in practice, will promote greater contact rights will result in children’s welfare playing second fiddle to their parents’ ongoing acrimony.”
“An additional statement will place an undue emphasis on the amount of time each parent spends with their child. It is not the quantity of time a parent spends with a child but the quality of the relationship between parent and child that is crucial to positive outcomes for children.”
Notes to Editors:
1. The vast majority of separating parents make private arrangements around residence and contact for their children; only 10% go through the courts, and these tend to be the most complex and conflicted cases.
[Non-resident parent contact, Blackwell, A & Dawe, F, ONS, 2003]
2. 71% of children have face-to-face contact with their other parent after separation, the majority of which includes overnight stays.
[I’m not saying it was easy…contact problems in separated families, Peacey, V & Hunt, J, Gingerbread, 2009]
3. The latest court statistics from 2010 show that, out of 95,460 applications for contact made to the courts, only 300 orders were refused.
[Judicial and Court Statistics 2010, Ministry of Justice, 2011]
4. Evidence based on detailed analysis of court files with a contact application showed that:
- Most cases ended with face to face contact. Where they did not this was usually because the applicant withdrew from proceedings.
- Non-resident parents were largely successful in getting direct contact where there had been none and in getting the type of contact sought.
- There was no evidence that non-resident parents as a group are systematically unreasonably treated by the family courts. On the contrary the study shows that the courts start from the position that contact is generally in the interests of the child.
[Outcomes of applications to court for contact orders after parental separation or divorce, Hunt, J & Macleod, A, OXFLAP, 2008]
