Safeguarding Children: The Impact of Parental Responsibility Laws (Presumption of Contact)
?
Let's be clear: no child should ever be exposed to physical or emotional harm.
Many of the detractors of our vision that Both Parents Matter, only debate the issue of parental responsibility at the extreme ends of the discussion sighting rapists, paedophiles and such claim as “Under statute, a married father can never have his parental responsibility removed even if he killed the child’s mother or violently assaulted the child.”? - this simply is not true!
In Parliament today (13/5/2024), those detractors' are holding discussions. There's a worrying trend: overlooking genuine threats to children's safety under the guise of claiming pro-contact culture exists in family court. Despite arguments to the contrary, evidence doesn't support the idea that dangerous parents routinely gain contact with their children, and legislation already exists to shield children from such dangers, as detailed in the Explanatory Notes of the Children and Families Act 2014.
According to Section 11 (paragraphs 105-109) of the Act, the child's welfare is paramount. It stresses the importance of a child maintaining a relationship with both parents after separation, but only when it's safe and in the child's best interest.
The proposed Victims and Prisoners Bill, currently under parliamentary review, includes a vital amendment (which we endorse): "Child rapists to automatically have parental responsibility stripped." While this amendment rightly protects children from physical harm, it overlooks the emotional harm caused by depriving a child of a safe and loving parent in their life.
领英推荐
Today's "parliamentary showcase" seems misdirected and not only misguided but also undermines existing legislation. It's based on the assumption that today's parliamentarians know better than the countless professionals who examine the dynamics of individual families.
?
If parliamentary efforts were directed towards resolving family conflicts during separations rather than exacerbating them, undoubtedly, the welfare of the child would be better protected. The outdated ideology of "dad is bad, mum is good" serves no one, least of all our children. It's quite distressing for any non-separated parent to think that if they were to divorce, there is no legislation in place to protect their child from losing a safe and loving parent in their lives.
?
It's time to prioritise the well-being of our children over outdated stereotypes and political posturing.
Families Need Fathers, a crucial organisation advocating for non-resident parents, plays a pivotal role in supporting families facing separation or divorce. Relying solely on public support, this nonprofit tirelessly champions the cause of parents seeking equitable access to their children post-separation. By offering guidance, resources, and a platform for shared experiences, Families Need Fathers ensures that parents have the tools to navigate the complex landscape of family law.
Public backing is essential to sustaining our efforts, as it enables us to extend our reach, provide legal support, and foster a community that understands the unique challenges faced by parents in family court proceedings.
Together with public support, Families Need Fathers strives to create a more equitable and compassionate family court system for the well-being of children and non-resident parents alike.
Join us in our efforts to support those who need us the most. Your Donation, however small will help us to support and maintain a relationship between a child and a loving parent.
Writer, researcher, theatre professional, instructor, legal blogger, husband, parent, grandparent.
9 个月This is the most important issue in family law currently. The myth that there is a presumption of contact in private law (no one disputes there is one in public law) is gaining ground, spread by campaign groups like SHERA or Right to Equality (which seem to be run by the same small group of activists), and has persuaded MPs like Jess Phillips. The truth is there is an effective presumption in case law that contact will generally be in the child's best interests unless the reverse can be shown. Compare with Scots law where all cases are tried on their merits. But most people would think it eminently sensible to start with the view that most parents are 'good enough', and the 4th principle of the Children Act is that the court should only make an order if necessary. What Barnett, Proudman, Phillips, et al want is a presumption of NO contact to be written into law, which would require overturning existing statutory and case law, and rejecting the Human Rights Act and the European and UN Conventions on the Rights of the Child. Unfortunately there is little effective opposition to this, and it may well happen under this or the next government, which would be disastrous to children and their families.
Master craftsman at Taylormadecarpentry.co.uk
9 个月3 children. Two father's perfectly ailinated Health visitor
Master craftsman at Taylormadecarpentry.co.uk
9 个月Not directed to attend court. Abuse of power in a public office
Master craftsman at Taylormadecarpentry.co.uk
9 个月If you know the right people you get free access to template reports . Abuse of process Not court ordered. Court never had a copy
Master craftsman at Taylormadecarpentry.co.uk
9 个月Legal aid fraud involves the mother lying. Then the social worker. Then the solicitor and finally the barrister. All nonsense. But as a father your expected to sell the home your providing for your child to fund a barrister that with implacable hostility will go on for 20 years .