Mixed reaction to parenting plan
There has been a mixed reaction to the Government’s publication of its proposed reforms to the family justice system, with the Conservatives accusing the Government of merely papering over the cracks.
Concerns about the family court system have shot up the agenda in recent months, with a number of welfare groups claiming that the system is biased against the father.
Some claim that after a parental split courts automatically assume that the child will be better off with the mother, and fail to adequately enforce access time granted to fathers.
Last week, Conservative leader Michael Howard told a family summit that Conservative plans would be based on a “strong presumption” of equal access rights for parents.
The Constitutional Affairs Secretary Lord Falconer spoke emphatically against that principle, saying: “There cannot and will not be an automatic presumption of 50/50 contact. Children cannot be divided like the furniture or the CD collection. It’s more complex than that.”
“The Government strongly believes that children need both parents – these proposals will make it more likely that children will continue to have two parents.”
“The law states that the child’s interests are paramount. That will not change.”
On enforcement, today’s consultation paper proposes more active monitoring of court orders to ensure they are complied with and legislation to give the judiciary stronger enforcement powers.
The stress though is laid on conciliation, with better advice for separating parents, targeting legal aid to promote earlier, more consensual resolution and less litigation, and giving judges the power to direct parents to in-court conciliation and mediation.
Lord Falconer said: “Parents will be helped and encouraged to come to their own arrangements. But, when they cannot, the courts will play a role. These family cases will be resolved in a swift and effective manner, while the courts will be more aware of domestic violence allegations.
“Already 90 per cent of separating couples come to their own arrangements for their children. But we want to help more parents to do so. That way, the process is less adversarial, faster and parents are more likely to stick to an agreement they have come to themselves than one imposed by a judge.
Secretary of State for Education, Charles Clarke, said: “We know that mediation and conciliation can often make a real difference to resolving contact issues and preventing couples from going to court in the first place which is far better for both the parents and the child.
Speaking before the official publication of the Green Paper, Theresa May, family spokesman for the Conservatives, said that the proposals “will be a huge disappointment for families up and down the country.
“Rather than address the real problems at the heart of our family justice system, the Minister would rather attempt to paper over the cracks. This is just another false dawn for all those many heartbroken parents and grandparents trapped for years in the courts and denied contact with their children.
Regarding the decision not to set a 50-50 presumption, Ms May said: “The absence of such a presumption has meant that parents with residence have found it far easier to obstruct the other parent’s access to their children and their ability to have a say in how those children are brought up. Government must redress that imbalance.
“The Minister has failed to grasp the real problem at the heart of the current system. What parents want is proper quality parenting time with their children, not the availability of more contact centres and warm words about “parenting plans”. Children need to have contact with their mothers and fathers if at all possible.”
The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Mark Oaten, however indicated that he backed the Government’s position. He said: “The break up of a family can be devastating for children, but these tragedies can’t be made better by rigid quotas or targets on access for parents.
“Every child is different, and every divorce settlement must reflect the needs of the whole family.
“Settlements should try to maintain access for both partners, but it is vital that the courts have flexibility at the same time.”
