The Government has published its consultation document on reform of the law for private law children proceedings.
The prelude to the consultation starts with the following: "The majority of parents who separate reach their own agreements about the care arrangements for their children. However, when disputes about these arrangements arise there is a risk that children's needs are overlooked. In too many cases one parent is left in a position where it is very hard to retain a strong and influential relationship with his or her child. The Government firmly believes that parents who are able and willing to play a positive role in their child's care should have the opportunity to do so".
Well, that's all fine. We are in agreement there.
"The aim of the proposed legislative amendment is to ensure that this happens in court cases and to reinforce the expectation generally that both parents are jointly responsible for their children's upbringing. The Government also believes that a tougher approach is needed in cases where court orders are breached, and it intends to explore the scope for additional enforcement sanctions for the courts. This consultation includes options and questions on how court orders in private family cases regarding the care of children can be more effectively enforced".
So, we have just had a very large consultation on the current Family Justice System and how it might be improved. Although the lobby for "shared parenting = an equal amount of time for both parents with the children" was very strong from some sectors of government, the Family Justice Review (FJR) panel decided that they would strongly recommend against changing the law to introduce any concept of shared parenting. Unfortunately, government being government, has the choice whether to accept or reject the recommendations set out for private law proceedings in the FJR. Enter another consultation...
Pannone solicitors (@Divorce_experts on twitter) has said that the need for new legislation has also been rejected by children’s charities such as the NSPCC who asserted that the importance of a relationship between children and both parents is a principle which is already recognised by the family law system.
They said that "Amending family law to explicitly recognise an existing principle may cause greater confusion between separating parents, leading to an increase in disputes and the number of cases that end up in court. We will however have to wait to see what impact the proposed changes may have in practice".
I really like the way suesspiciousminds (
"So, this is another crack at a consultation. (Only this time, the consultation is – in traditional government style – “We’re going to do this, which of these four ways do you want it precisely done?’ Oh, and we’ll make none of the options particularly desirable, but one on offer is less awful than the others, so that when that one triumphs in the consultation, we can imagine to ourselves that it was the overwhelmingly popular way to make this change)."
Having read the consultations and the options that are on the table, it seems that government has not considered the most important aspect of parenting post separation - that the child has the right to a meaningful relationship with both parents. Sometimes this does not equate to the amount of time the child spends with each parent. A court (and maybe I give judges far too much credit) has the responsibility to ensure that if the time is significantly disproportionate, that there is a good explanation for this - and that everybody involved in the case has a clear understanding of why the decision has been made and how it will be played out.
It does not seem like any of the options provided in the consultation document incorporate this principle fully, which is disappointing to say the least. So in starting to draft our response to the consultation...in the words of Lucy Reed (@familoo on twitter), "I vote none of the above".
No comments:
Post a Comment