UK Family Law Reform

Free information index

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

X

Y

Z

----- Original Message -----
From: geraldcash@btinternet.com
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 10:07 AM
Subject: What do you think?

Dear Dave,

Firstly, I think your e-mail was very well researched and constructed and addressed the points at issue clearly. The response is only to be expected. Policiticians do not listen and more to the point, I really think they do not understand what they are discussing or the importance of what they are discussing for those involved.

I am deeply worried about what I have read and for me there is one major and vital point missing; the welfare of the child.

Expressions such as;

However, the parental involvement legislation will not entitle parents to an equal share of the child’s time or a ‘right’ to contact with the child. The child’s welfare and interests will remain the most important factors when decisions are made in cases that relate to a child’s upbringing.

But nowhere does the bill allow for the child to be heard! How can the best interests of the child be considered if the child is not heard? Social Services, CAFCASS, judges, these are people who do not know the child and yet have the power to ruin their lives, yes ruin their lives. This needs to be addressed before any rights of access are laid down. Gender is a factor here, an enormous factor. There is the presumption that the biological mother is the only person who should have residence of the child, she is all powerful. The father has no rights automatically attached. The child is ignored.

There must be provision for the child to be heard. Why is this not done at present? Because it is time consuming and therefore expensive. Far cheaper to get a biased report from CAFCASS who spend maybe one hour at best interviewing a child with the mother present and then write a report detailing what is best for the child they really do not know.

With regard to enforcement, a strong message from the consultation was that measures designed to ‘punish’ parents are unlikely, in many cases, to be appropriate or to encourage parents to be co-operative in the future.

Well without some form of corrective measure the woman will continue to abuse the system with the result that the child suffers, not the father or the mother, the most important person is the child. What does the child think about the mother who deliberately prevents access to the father? Again the child must be listened to and this takes time and time is money.

The principle that a child benefits from involvement with both parents is fundamental and widely agreed – although there will, of course, be some children for whom it is sadly not the case. Every family and every child’s circumstances are different. The quality of time a child spends with each parent and a clear focus on the child’s overall care and needs, are the most important factors when families separate.

Yes every case is different, every case needs to be heard, every child needs to be heard. If the welfare of the child is the most important factor, then an obstructive mother should not have the child living with her, this is in the best interests of the child. Take the child away from the obstructive parent otherwise the child will grow up with mental health problems and the resultant cost to the government will be far higher than doing the job properly in the first place.

I am a psychotherapist and I work with children in school. I work with mothers who need help. The current government policy of 'must get women back to work as quicly as possible after childbirth' is wrong and harmful to the family structure. The high social dissatisfaction with life in Britain, the enormous pressure to make money, the must have society, the whole capitalist ideals, mean that family values have been destroyed with the result that children now have multiple families. I have one mother I see who has two children by different fathers. She now has a new man in her life and the children's lives. Each of the three men have four other children from previous relationships. How do the children define 'family'? Who is in their 'family'? Will the 'family' be the same for each member in this group of breeding individuals? This is what is missing is any government legislation referring to families or the rights of parents. They lack understanding of the complexity of the situation. Each child must be heard and given time to say what they want, only in this way will the fears of the child be known and from that a true attempt at doing what is best for the child can be made. As it is, who really cares about the child, the system is only interested in complying with financial constraints and targets.

As you can probably tell, I am furious at all so called officials who talk about the welfare of children, but actually have no interest in the children they profess to want to protect, if they had they would want and demand that these children are listened to. Young children do know what they want, where they feel safe and secure, but it takes time to hear them. That is why so many children are now seeing counsellors and psychotherapists in schools. It is so sad to hear a child say he or she wants to end their little life! Politicians, Social Workers, CAFCASS, Judges and so many more ignor what they should be doing and cause harm to the children they claim they want to help. What a group of pompous, heartless people. They need to listen, not to some biased feminist's group, but to the children. The main reason this will not happen is financial, but a second very relevant influence is the bias of the system in legislating against the father.

With Best Wishes

Gerald Cash

----- Original Message -----
From: margaret.gardener@btopenworld.com
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 12:47 AM
Subject: Department for Education response: Case Reference 2013/0026977

Hi David,

It is still an assumption the mother should be the caring parent - whether the child agrees or not?

From FASO point of view - our callers want access to their children, but are often stopped with even more false allegations, or just like as you have experienced in your work sheer refusal too access.

When child protection allegations are made the accused partner is kicked out the house by socail services regardless of there finances and upkeep of the child(ren), and not spoken to - whether the child wants that to happen or not.

Parents who refuse access are not dealt with by the courts as each new allegation starts a new investigation despite the evidence of it being a vexatious allegation (repeated allegations with no evidence)

as I understand it couples have a choice whether to go to mediation - and there is no legislation in place to ensure the parents access this facility. How do you get one belligerent parent talking to a reasonable parent putting their child first.

Children are not put at the forefront of these court proceedings, otherwise the child would be listened to and have access to both parents as they want, and if one is being investigated under child protection procedures a safe way for the child to see them should be arranged - and if they are only being accused of none child protection issues that's what supervised access is about.

Margaret
FASO

----- Original Message -----
From: joakimidisyuri@yahoo.com.au
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 9:55 AM
Subject: Department for Education response: Case Reference 2013/0026977

Hi David

The Department of Education is doing no more than peddling the official party line.

Kind regards,

Yuri

----- Original Message -----
From: robertwhiston1@sky.com
To: fr4e@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 6:35 PM
Subject: Department for Education response

I am afraid it is worse than that.
"Just look at this quote in the second last paragraph of
their reply, which effectively renders any amendments meaningless: "Where
there is wilful obstruction of contact, the courts will be able to make use
of existing enforcement powers for unpaid work, the award of financial
compensation and, if appropriate, committal to prison or a fine". "
Judges have made it very clear in Whitehall Cttees that I have attended they
will not enforce punitive (as they see it) sanctions against mothers even if
government offers them more powers to do so.

RW

----- Original Message -----
From: dotafeedback@gmail.com
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 3:56 PM
Subject: Department for Education response: Case Reference 2013/0026977

Hi David,

It is all smoke and mirror psychobabble, commensurate with an Orwellian soap opera. The public has heard this same nonsense for the past 40 years now and needs to seriously question the credibility and accuracy of such repetitive outpouring of utter diatribe. Whether it is wilful blindness or gross ineptitude matters very little, but the outcome for millions of children and families worldwide is extremely dismal as a result.

Just look at this quote in the second last paragraph of their reply, which effectively renders any amendments meaningless: "Where there is wilful obstruction of contact, the courts will be able to make use of existing enforcement powers for unpaid work, the award of financial compensation and, if appropriate, committal to prison or a fine".

What this convenient little caveat shows is that the courts have had the enforcement powers all along, but as everyone knows only too well, they have and will continue to refuse, to make use of those powers in the interest of judicial expediency.

I'm afraid, that short of a royal commission into the human rights abuse of the nations' families at the hands of the family law courts and a string of associated bureaucracies, not a skerrick of improvement will occur.

Kind regards
Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: media@dial.pipex.com
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 10:42 AM
Subject: What do you think?

David,

Fine words and an excellent response which is deliciously self-contradictory. We don't intend to
punish reclacitrant parents but we will or won''t - take your pick. It means anything you want it to
mean which is the whole purpose of the exercise. Something for everyone - keeps everyone happy. Jack Straw was the master at this when at one dinner he proudly announced that the human rights
legislation which he introduced was a big leap forward for civilisation and at another dinner on the
next night tore into it saying that it was in dire need of change. Always bear in mind that the
truth and lies are the same thing to lawyers. They say what they want to get what they want.

My response would be to seek clarification on the various contradictory points and ask which
organisations have approved the presumption issue. More than half is quoted. Pick up on the detail.
Ask for more detail.

However, the lawyers have decided that there will effectively be no change except that there will be
fine words spoken. So, the only way forward is to seek monitoring - get the numbers both before and after the change. Ask what numbers have been/will be measured.

The only way to achieve real change will be to remove the Law as I have been advocating for 10
years. As soon as a lawyer gets near a case, it is doomed. Mild disputes are blown up way out of
proportion because that's what lawyers do. they train for that, they get paid for that. Note how the
word, 'court' keeps appearing. That is the root cause of the problem. Lawyers and courts don't solve problems, they make them worse. That's what they are designed to do. Confrontational. The ONLY solution is to REMOVE courts in 95% of cases. I have shown how it can be done but it won't be because lawyers will lose massive amounts of work. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

We all know that if there is any improvement at all, you will need a microscope. We therefore have
to work in other directions. Use the law to defeat the law.

Hope these thoughts help.

Kind regards,

Paul.

----- Original Message -----
From: steven.allan@mensaid.co.uk
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 9:48 PM
Subject: Department for Education response: Case Reference 2013/0026977

Hi David,

As you will know this ‘blah’ actually says nothing – it is cut and paste from a database of standard replies which say and mean nothing.

You can and probably should nail these people down to a specific answer – just take one issue, for example, ask them to define what ‘involvement’ means in respect of “to presume that the involvement of both parents in the child’s life will further the child’s welfare. “ I doubt you will get an answer, nor can it ever be quantified by them. More than likely they will say it is something to be decided upon in each case and they cannot interfere with the judicial process.

Despite the fact that “More than half of the respondents were supportive of the government’s plans to legislate and indicated that a presumption of parental involvement was their preferred option. “ (yer right) what this actually means is that none of these respondents have the slightest clue as to what it is they are in fact supporting – but it does sound good.

Regards

Steve

----- Original Message -----
From: cornelius.pope@ymail.com
To: ukfamilylawreform@yahoogroups.co.uk
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 9:35 PM
Subject: In the best interests' of children.

We need similar, but into family law misselling. This is the correct legal solution.

The key principle is the "welfare checklist" beloved of the judiciary.

Do you know how the welfare checklist is applied in family law ?

If the answer is no, then no solicitor should have accepted instructions in family proceedings.

I am suing my solicitors on this principle,

see, http://pattersonalastair.wordpress.com/about/procedural-guides/1476-2/

The Children Act 1989 intended a new form of legal service. One that did not require family lawyers. The family lawyers are the problem hanging onto the gravy train of family proceedings.

As I have repeatedly posted before, all there is to family proceedings is the CAFCASS section 7 report.

Family law is nothing more than saying, "It depends on the CAFCASS report". For which they get paid, on average, £37,000. A nice living!

Alastair

----- Original Message -----
From: hock@blueyonder.co.uk
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 11:00 AM
Subject: Department for Education response: Case Reference 2013/0026977

Dave,

Same old crap as before. It is verbiage. Take road traffic. The state knows that driving within the speed limit saves lives. The order for A-roads says that no one must drive faster than 70 miles per hour. Well some people like to race their cars – so once the road traffic order is made do you think that the police’s job should be “helping drivers” to stay within the speed limits?

We know that the secret courts are allowing perjury and so send the message that all you need to do is invent lies of domestic violence…. Fines? How on earth do the courts enforce fines? They do not and will not, and there are all the delay tactics.

Also, now that legal aid cuts have been made, I would predict that lawyers will need to claim domestic violence so that the lawyer has access to public funding ….

The language of “helping parents” is the latest way to prevent the state from accepting that “contact defiance is child abuse”.

So while the language seems progressive, it is just going to be the same old stuff just wearing new clothes …

Eugen

The government is, however, taking a number of steps to strengthen the enforcement of court orders. … The government believes this is key to breaking the cycle of non-compliance and helping parents to overcome difficulties. The focus, wherever possible, should be on helping parents make contact work, so that children benefit from the involvement of both parents in their life.

In addition, the Children and Families Bill contains provisions which make clear that courts will be able to make full use of powers to direct a parent who is in breach of an order to participate in an activity designed to address their behaviour. Where there is wilful obstruction of contact, the courts will be able to make use of existing enforcement powers for unpaid work, the award of financial compensation and, if appropriate, committal to prison or a fine.

----- Original Message -----
From: bpw@freenetname.co.uk
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 10:56 AM
Subject: Department for Education response: Case Reference 2013/0026977

All of these policies measures were available before as far as I know. E.g. that a child will have contact with a father. E.g. sending a mother to jail for not obeying a court order was always there. It is "contempt of court", that's all. It was always possible for an obstructed fathger to go back to court ASAP about an ignored order, but a year ? that's far too long.

If someone caused as much damage to another person, in another area of life, it would usually be a criminal offence e.g. stealing somebody's TV is a criminal offence. So how come obstructing the riught to bring up your own children, far worse that losing a TV, is not a criminal offence ?

The reply says nothing new.

Barry

----- Original Message -----
From: kensanderson@fsmail.net
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 8:06 AM
Subject: What do you think?

David

This is very much the party line and what happens in reality if and when the legislation is passed is a whole different ball game in my opinion. Its interesting to note what the parties want to happen but it was our view that unless there is very clear and unequivocal guidance then there is the possibilty that their wishes and aspirations don't turn into reality.

I like the fact that they see breaches of orders as something that needs to be fixed, and quickly. The only problem is that family courts already have very long lists with not enough judges to be able to give the continuity that family procedures need. Saying that if there is a breach within twelve months then it will be fast tracked back to the original judge is a great aspiration but the cuts in funding for courts are, in my opinion, likely to lead to this being unsustainable.

In a conversation I had with a very senior judge, about breaches of orders; he said that judges felt impotent when dealing with breaches because they knew that if they jailed a mum for a persistent breach then the whole of the femenist movement would come down against them and the daily Mail would have a field day! He told us about when he went on a visit to texas and talked to a judge there about the fact that they didn't have this breach of order problem. He was told that this was because for a short period in the 90's they actually jailed perpetrators over the weekend period and removed their drivers licences and such like. He said that the jails were full for a couple of months but then the message soon got out there of the consequences of breaching orders and it disappeared. It isn't going to happen here but in my view a short sharp package of measures could solve a very long standing problem.

Best wishes

Ken

----- Original Message -----
From: w1c1@ymail.com
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 5:13 AM
Subject: Department of Education response

Hi Dave

The response reminds me of a typical doctor who has no clue about the underlying cause of the disease, but tries some provide a couple of pills to somebody who in fact is terminally ill in the futile hope that something will work.

An idea that has come to mind is that a facility exists on the Internet for people across the world to engage collaboratively in writing an article - this concept could be used to draft a response with all the participants endorsing the combined reaction to correspondence such as the example that you have received.

Regards

William

----- Original Message -----
From: familymen@eircom.net
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 11:49 PM
Subject: Department for Education response: Case Reference 2013/0026977

Dave, thanks for showing me this. It is clear the same thing is going on in the UK as here in Ireland.

This letter and the legislation itself is nothing other than diabolical dissimulation (I use this word as its meaning is so precise as to what they are doing).

The whole game is to make everyone "forget" or be confused as to the true essence of Marriage and the Family that it founds.

I have attached a document which sets out (taken from a current Supreme Court case actually) the "grounds" for why the Marriage belongs to the Spouses concerned LOCK STOCK AND BARREL and the state's function is simply to facilitate whatever the Spouses concerned ask of them.

The State has no legitimate authority to order either or both of the Spouses to do anything to do with the Family's internal affairs.

There has been a protracted and almost successful attempt to twist everyone's understanding until we accept that the State owns Marriages and families and so can lawfully break us up and destroy our kids.

They can't.

Please enjoy the joy of seeing the Truth revealed in all its splendour at last.

The case this legal argument was written for is about the courts believing bit can dissolve a marriage where one of the Spouses declined to do it.

However it equally applies to matters of child custody (residence) and all other matters including so-called "Domestic Violence". All such proceedings (if that term is appropriate) can only happen where both the Spouses concerned exchange their informed consent in court, otherwise the court has no jurisdiction.

Just think what that means and get back to me when you want to explore it all further.

God bless, Roger

----- Original Message -----
From: pragnellc@iprimus.com.au
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 11:23 PM
Subject: Department for Education response: Case Reference 2013/0026977

Hi Dave

It seems to be quite similar to the Australian model of Family Dispute Resolution which has had a limited amount of success. However they do not mention that exemption can be obtained by either of the parties from such negotiations, where there are allegations of domestic violence or child abuse and this is an important element of the Australian model.

What is also needed in the legislation is a system of monitoring of the agreed arrangements (Consent Orders) and the Court Orders if the Courts have been required to make decisions regarding custody and contact, as so very often one or other of the parties fail to uphold their part of the agreement or otherwise do not comply, and children’s developmental and welfare needs and views change as they grow older but they are locked into inflexible and unchangeable arrangements which may not suit anyone’s needs.

It should therefore be a requirement that there should be a Report prepared on every case after six months of the commencement of the arrangements to find out if the arrangements are working to the satisfaction of the parties and in particular the children’s views on how the arrangements are working from their perspective. I frequently encounter situations where changes have occurred in the living arrangements of the parties (e.g. re-partnering/ move of home or work/ illnesses or behavioural disorders of the children) yet there is no way of making adjustments in the arrangements without a further Court Hearing.

Thereafter each of the parties and the children should be able to request such a Review of Arrangements at two yearly intervals. Many parents and children suffer years of anguish when there are such failures of compliance or one or other of the parties use the arrangements to continue with vengeful persecutions of the other party and the children. Such Interim Reports could be dealt with by Judges in Chambers and not require another full hearing such as currently occur with Contravention Hearings.

Such a process would I am sure, considerably reduce the need for the many returns to Courts for contraventions of Orders and establish whether in fact the Agreements or the Court Orders are working `in the best interests of the children’.

Kind regards,

Charles.

----- Original Message -----
From: anne.harris4@yahoo.co.uk
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 8:56 PM
Subject: Department for Education response

Dave,

I don’t think we will see any change in Family Law. Nothing is to be done about False Allegations. The below bothers me a bit:

“The co-operative parenting consultation attracted over 200 responses from a variety of interested parties including fathers and mothers; legal professionals and academics. More than half of the respondents were supportive of the government’s plans to legislate and indicated that a presumption of parental involvement was their preferred option.”

It seems to me that Government sometimes seem to consult those who give them the responses they want.

I hope I’m wrong. Time will tell.

Anne.

----- Original Message -----
From: sobk13@gmail.com
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 8:42 PM
Subject: What do you think?

Hi David,

I think the problems are not legal ones; they're cultural and social and have a lot to do with competence.

Kind regards,
Natasha

----- Original Message -----
From: cjeconrad@yahoo.co.uk
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 7:56 PM
Subject: Department for Education response: Case Reference 2013/0026977

Hi David

But this is nothing less than we expected is it? So no surprise there. And some of us have been pointing out that the Bill will make no difference for quite some time now and that it was going to be pushed through Parliament.

Very best
Celia

----- Original Message -----
From: hemmingj@parliament.uk
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 7:46 PM
Subject: Department for Education response: Case Reference 2013/0026977

It is a bit of a con by the civil service rather that the ministers.

----- Original Message -----
From: cornelius.pope@ymail.com
To: ukfamilylawreform@yahoogroups.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 7:38 PM
Subject: Department for Education response: Case Reference 2013/0026977

It is just the same as before, 2000 and 2006. It states the case law in 2000.

Again, the only problem in family law has ever been welfare reporting which is now CAFCASS.

The only thing that is never investigated is CAFCASS.

This problem goes back over a decade, Oliver Cyriax, Dr Pelling, nothing has changed.

In my view the only answer is to start trashing CAFCASS offices and beating up CAFCASS Officers.

Alastair

----- Original Message -----
From: david.hughes43@ntlworld.com
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 7:20 PM
Subject: Department for Education response: Case Reference 2013/0026977

Hi Dave!

On the face of it this reply sounds encouraging. Considered also in the light of the government's intention to withdraw legal aid from partners in divorce who sue each other (usually the non-waged wife (who previously received legal aid) suing her waged husband (who didn't get legal aid), this might provide a more level playing field for fathers.

If the intention is to force parents to take a more even-handed approach to cooperation via a vis bringing up their children, this could improve the quality of the lives of the children concerned. However, reading between the lines, there is still scope for some bias in the interpretation of this legislation. "In the best interests of the child" can mean many things to many judges and in the past has simply meant handing the children over to the mother in 90% of cases.

It's something we shall need to keep a sharp eye on and see what the actual results are. All the surveys show beyond any possible doubt that all children do better when brought up by both parents in the same home but, where divorce intervenes, then being brought up by both parents by sensible sharing of the children is the next best thing.

Regards,

David.

----- Original Message -----
From: gwpiskor@sympatico.ca
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 6:50 PM
Subject: Department for Education response: Case Reference 2013/0026977

David:

This is a typical non-descript letter of no import from your typical non-descript Communications Unit indicating your letter was duly received, noted, replied to with the usual stock banalities, and otherwise ignored.

It states nothing new but reaffirms that the original shared parenting intent will be watered down to the point of meaninglessness. In short, same old, same old!

The presumptive right to a meaningful relationship with parents certainly doesn’t preclude shared parenting, but, in legal terms, it certainly doesn’t encourage the required cultural shift within the judiciary. At the same time, the wording is sufficiently general that it allows the UK to claim they are “legally” compliant with anything and everything.

But you already knew that....wgp

George Piskor

----- Original Message -----
From: briandhitchcock@blackberry.orange.co.uk
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: Department for Education response: Case Reference 2013/0026977

Dear Dave,
The Government put forward four options and did not allow for alternative options when it consulted. The whole issue of shared parenting was brushed under the carpet.
Regards,
Brian

----- Original Message -----
From: hemmingj@parliament.uk
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 5:18 PM
Subject: Department for Education response: Case Reference 2013/0026977

I don't actually think the words in the bill will make any difference in private law cases.

----- Original Message -----
From: Unmonitored.ACCOUNT@education.gsi.gov.uk
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 9:43 AM
Subject: Department for Education response: Case Reference 2013/0026977

Dear Mr Mortimer

Thank you for your email of 19 April, regarding the Children and Families Bill.

The parental involvement clause in the Children and Families Bill reflects the approach agreed by the coalition government following full, national consultation on options for legislative change. It is part of a wider package of measures, including non-legislative support, to encourage and enable separated parents resolve disputes and reach agreements about their children’s care.

The parental involvement clause amends the Children Act 1989 to place a duty on the courts – in cases where there are disputes about children’s care – to presume that the involvement of both parents in the child’s life will further the child’s welfare.

The intention of this legislation is to ensure that children are able to maintain a relationship with both of their parents following family separation. The government also intends for this legislation to send a clear message to separating parents that they remain jointly responsible for their children, encouraging them to resolve their dispute without the need for court intervention, wherever possible.

However, the parental involvement legislation will not entitle parents to an equal share of the child’s time or a ‘right’ to contact with the child. The child’s welfare and interests will remain the most important factors when decisions are made in cases that relate to a child’s upbringing.

The co-operative parenting consultation attracted over 200 responses from a variety of interested parties including fathers and mothers; legal professionals and academics. More than half of the respondents were supportive of the government’s plans to legislate and indicated that a presumption of parental involvement was their preferred option.

With regard to enforcement, a strong message from the consultation was that measures designed to ‘punish’ parents are unlikely, in many cases, to be appropriate or to encourage parents to be co-operative in the future.

The government is, however, taking a number of steps to strengthen the enforcement of court orders. Breach cases occurring within the first twelve months of an order being made will return to court quickly and, wherever possible, to the same judge who made the original order. The government believes this is key to breaking the cycle of non-compliance and helping parents to overcome difficulties. The focus, wherever possible, should be on helping parents make contact work, so that children benefit from the involvement of both parents in their life.

In addition, the Children and Families Bill contains provisions which make clear that courts will be able to make full use of powers to direct a parent who is in breach of an order to participate in an activity designed to address their behaviour. Where there is wilful obstruction of contact, the courts will be able to make use of existing enforcement powers for unpaid work, the award of financial compensation and, if appropriate, committal to prison or a fine.

The principle that a child benefits from involvement with both parents is fundamental and widely agreed – although there will, of course, be some children for whom it is sadly not the case. Every family and every child’s circumstances are different. The quality of time a child spends with each parent and a clear focus on the child’s overall care and needs, are the most important factors when families separate.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Your correspondence has been allocated reference number 2013/0026977. If you need to respond to us, please visit: https://www.education.gov.uk/help/contactus and quote your reference number.

As part of our commitment to improving the service we provide to our customers, we are interested in hearing your views and would welcome your comments via our website at: https://www.education.gov.uk/pcusurvey

Yours sincerely

Rebecca Craynor
Ministerial and Public Communications Division

Rebecca.Craynor@education.gsi.gov.uk

https://www.education.gov.uk/

----- Original Message -----
From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
To: TheBillTeam.MAILBOX@education.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 7:20 PM
Subject: The Bill is a major missed opportunity.

Dear Children and Families Bill team,

I really don't understand what you are doing given what the Conservatives pledged to do in their pre-election manifesto. It seems history is repeating it's self as Mr. Timpson said on the 14th March 2013. Column number: 288

The debate is not new to the House, however: I took the time to look back at Hansard, as we often do late at night when waiting to vote, and I discovered a debate on this very issue back in 2006. The Conservative party, then in opposition, was pushing this proposal, but it was rejected by the then Labour Government, and the Labour Opposition continue to reject it now. In fact, it was the subject of a Conservative party manifesto commitment in 2005. The problem has persisted and has continued to be debated throughout that period, and here we are in 2013, going through the same process.

Do you acknowledge that you have failed to both keep your word & that in effect you have failed to act in the best interests of children since you have been in office & that you can not be trusted to do what you say as history proves. I don't think this coalition has got a future or that any of you will be the most popular people in the country by 2015.

What are you doing when Tim Loughton has already stated what was wrong with the law & how it needs to be changed during the debate on the Children and Adoption Bill in 2006. Column 1282

Tim Loughton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, as well as those who do not sign early-day motions for reasons of personal choice, there are Ministers, who cannot sign them. That means that a vast majority of free-thinking Members put their pens to the motion. Only 146 of those 345, however, were prepared to go into the Lobby this evening, when it really mattered. That speaks volumes about the attitude of certain Members.

The Minister said that, taken as a whole, the Bill offered improvement in life chances for some of the most vulnerable children in our society, and elsewhere. We, of course, support that intent. She also said that the House was united in wanting to maintain good contact with both parents, and we agree with that too. However, she could not resist tagging on a condemnation of the Opposition’s approach, which she said compromised the paramountcy of the child’s welfare.

The Minister made that remark even though we have made it quite clear that the welfare of the child was the ultimate consideration in every case. We would not have proposed any of our amendments if we thought that the paramountcy of the child’s welfare would be compromised. She called us misguided, but at least we are misguided with integrity.

I am encouraged that the Government acknowledge the problems that result from the increasing numbers of families who split up. There are 12 million children in this country, and one in four experience the repercussions when couples separate. The Government also acknowledge the need to do something to beef up the penalties against serial flouters of contact orders, and to monitor contact proceedings.

The Government recognise, too, that something more must be done to prevent couples from going to court in the first place, as that is what leads to the long-drawn-out, expensive and acrimonious legal action that is the reason for this Bill’s introduction. That is why proactive mediation is so important. All the Opposition amendments have been predicated on the need to safeguard the welfare of children, but the problem is that Ministers too often seem to be hiding behind the paramountcy principle that was introduced—by a Conservative Government—in section 1 of the Children Act 1989. It remains relevant and valuable to this day, but Ministers use it as an excuse for not taking the serious and radical action that would go a long way to addressing the problems that we have all acknowledged. Instead, they go through the motions, posturing, ticking the boxes and claiming that problems will be sorted out.

The Bill is full of good intentions and warm words, but it shies away from the radical overhaul of the legal system that is so vital. On Second Reading, I said that it was a “toothless fudge”—a rather mixed metaphor, I admit, but we gave the Government the benefit of the doubt. We argued long and hard—on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report today—for serious improvements that would have given the Bill real teeth and firmed up the fudge. However, this Minister and this Government have singularly failed to engage in the debate. They have failed to take on board—Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the Third Reading of a Bill is about its content as it is, not as he might wish it to be.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, as my point is that the Bill, which has not been amended as we would have liked, shows that the Government have missed a major opportunity. As a result, it has ended up being a dud that is difficult for us to support.

Under the Bill as it stands, serial breachers of contact orders will continue to offend because they will continue to think that they are able to get away with doing so. Courts will be reluctant to award fines that may cause children to suffer, and will not be obliged by statute to treat both parents on a level playing field. People who breach contact orders will know that the longer they can spin out legal procedures, the more worn down the non-resident partner will become, and thus the less likely he or she will be to carry on with a claim in the courts. Moreover, mediation without some form of necessary encouragement will not work when entrenched partners who refuse to take part in the process—regardless of the feelings of the other partner—know that their refusal will not count against them later in court. All of that could have been addressed in the Bill by a simple but fundamental change to the law, to recognise the desirability of presuming that a child’s interests are best served by maximising quality time spent with both parents—always subject to concern for the safety of the child.

In rejecting the Bill, we do not reject the principle but rather the complete failure of the Government and the Minister to engage in constructive debate to produce a workable piece of legislation that really addresses the problem. We support better mediation: the Bill will not produce it. We support more effective and meaningful penalties against non-compliance—a sliding scale: the Bill will not produce it. We certainly support the inter-country adoption measures and safeguards, as we have made clear all along, but they are just a small part of a bigger, flawed Bill.

The Bill will do little to achieve better mediation and the need proactively to keep couples away from the long slippery slope that acrimonious court action can be. The Bill will not provide a real deterrent to serial breachers of contact orders, who know how to play the system and how to wear down a former partner. Above all, in its current form, the Bill will not achieve a level playing field for separating parents making arrangements for their children based on respect for a child’s right to maximum quality time with both of his or her parents, on the presumption that it is in his or her best interests to achieve that, barring any genuine risks to his or her safety.

The Bill is a major missed opportunity. We have engaged in constructive debate over the last year and we have given the Government the benefit of the doubt. I fear that they have failed to respond. They certainly failed to take on a single one of the amendments that we proposed to the House in good faith. Despite the good measures that the Bill achieves on inter-country adoption and the good intentions it professes on mediation and on enforcement against breach of contact orders, we fear that it will not work. On that basis, it will not achieve what it set out to do. The Bill is a dud and sadly—very sadly—I must urge Opposition Members to vote against it, because it will not do what it was supposed to do.

I think you should also read what Earl Howe said on the 12th October 2005. Column GC106

With the leave of the Committee, I shall start my remarks again, as it is perhaps easier to pick up the thread of the argument that way. A very simple truth is associated with contact disputes—that if both parties to the dispute are content with the amount of contact that they have with the child, there is no longer any dispute. Contact disputes are about one thing and one thing only; that is, the amount of time that each parent believes that he or she should have with the child. That simple truth seems to have somehow got submerged during the drafting of this Bill.

What we needed in the Bill, and what everyone believed that we were going to get when the Green Paper was published, were measures designed to facilitate contact, which would put right the deficiencies of court settlements under the current system—deficiencies which the Government themselves acknowledged in their Green Paper. What we have in Clause 1 are not measures that facilitate contact but rather measures that will serve only to defer contact. The so-called contact activities, for which the clause provides, are not about contact—they are the things that the court says that you have to do before you are allowed contact. That idea, with great respect to the Minister, will do nothing to help to sort out the one and only question at issue between two parents: how much time should each of them be allowed to have with the child? It completely misses the point.

Clause 1 is a blind alley, and the Government have got themselves into it because of a muddle about the current law and the way in which it operates in practice. Instead of acknowledging, as they originally did, that the system was not working and needed mending, they are now saying that the basis on which the courts operate is all right and that it does not need changing. The Minister has repeatedly maintained that case law safeguards the principle of the two-parent model; that is to say, the principle that children normally benefit from a meaningful relationship with both parents following separation, unless good reasons can be shown why that should not happen. In other words, they say that there is already a presumption of meaningful relations or meaningful contact enshrined in case law. But when it is put to them, as it was yesterday, that presumption should be mirrored in statute, they say that they do not like the idea that presumption of reasonable contact should actually appear in the Children Act 1989. So their position is contradictory, and the muddle of it is compounded by their belief that the present law is all right.

The present law is not all right, because it cannot prevent thousands of blameless and loving parents being granted next to no contact with their children for no material or good reason. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, that we are talking not about dangerous or dysfunctional parents but about normal, loving, non-violent parents who have had to come to court repeatedly to prove to a judge why it is reasonable for them to have a meaningful relationship with their child. That is the effect of the current law. They do not enter the court with a presumption of reasonable or meaningful contact; they enter it with a presumption of contact of some kind, which may end up as two hours once a fortnight, for no material or good reason.

Case law does not help those parents. The Minister's contention that it does is based on a fundamental misreading of case law and of the Children Act 1989. Certainly you can find in case law warm pronouncements by judges about the desirability of meaningful relationships between the child and both his parents. But if case law is to be useful as a precedent, it has to pass a test. It would have to be recognised by the Court of Appeal as having clear applicability to broad and recognisable categories of parents. It would have to provide a steer to the courts in cases involving those same categories of parent about how much contact time it is reasonable for the resident and non-resident parent to have. Nothing like that exists in case law, which is why I say that the Minister has misled himself in referring to case law.

The question was asked yesterday: what is the definition of the term "reasonable contact"? The answer is that it can be defined by reference to units of time, dependent on the circumstances of the case, so long as those units of time are sufficient to deliver the desired end result, which is a meaningful relationship with the child. Most aggrieved non-resident parents will tell you that unless there is overnight contact, the chances of a meaningful relationship continuing are low. The judge might say that in the best interests of the child, and to give the best chance of a meaningful relationship, it is reasonable for the resident mother to have 70 per cent of the contact time and the non-resident father to have 30 per cent. The apportionment is then translated into numbers of days and nights per year.

But all too often, material contact of this kind is denied or brought to an end for no material reason. It is brought to an end in the face of the resident mother's emotional protests. It is brought to an end because the mother accuses the father of having repeatedly asked for the marmalade in a sarcastic tone of voice. It is brought to an end because the mother accuses the father of changing the time at which a meeting is to take place, thereby upsetting the domestic routine. There needs to be a good reason to deny a blameless non-violent parent reasonable contact time.

With only a legal presumption of contact, a non-resident parent can be sure of only one thing—that he or she will be awarded at least some minimal level of contact unless a good reason can be shown why not. No more than that. That, again, is the answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. She did not say that the current presumption of contact poses a risk to the child, and she was right in not saying that. The fact that there is a presumption in law does not mean that a court must make a contact order. If there is a good reason in the interests of the child not to make a contact order—usually because to do so would pose an unacceptable risk to the child—then there is no contact order. In the same way, if the Children Act were to provide for a presumption of reasonable contact, that would not put the child at a greater risk of harm. A presumption is only what it says—a presumption. If a good reason is shown to the court why there should not be material contact, the court will not make an order granting it. It would not be reasonable to do so.

So I say to the Minister, please take further legal advice. With one breath, he is embracing the presumption of reasonable contact, and with the next he is resisting it. By sticking to his current position, by resisting the idea that a presumption of reasonable contact should be incorporated into the Children Act, he is doing one thing and one thing only—rejecting the two-parent model for bringing up children. He is rejecting the golden principle that the child-parent bond should not be lightly set aside. He is going against what he says he believes about how children can best maximise their life chances. And because he does not acknowledge that a very simple change to the law is what stands between contentment and utter grief for hundreds, if not thousands, of parents, he has allowed himself to believe that the measures contained in Clause 1 will do good. They will not, because they are conceived on the premise that there is nothing wrong with the Children Act provisions on contact that a few parenting classes will not cure. If you do not cure the root of the problem, you will not cure the problem, and the root of the problem is something that the Bill does not touch.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer

----- Original Message -----
From:cjeconrad@yahoo.co.uk
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: The Bill is a major missed opportunity.

Hi David

If you get a response it will indeed be interesting to read what they come back with.

One of the things that really frustrates me is the argument that 'time' is not necessary to build a quality relationship. Time is a factor.

I have repeatedly said that the Bill will make no practical difference. And have just done so in my latest submissions on the Bill.

When the Government issued the Consultation on a parent's involvement in a child's life last summer and set out 4 options for parties responding to comment upon I found myself unable to agree with any of them because in my view none of them were/are satisfactory. I made the point that if I was a resident parent determined to thwart the non-resident parent/child relationship then I wouldn't be deterred by any of this proposed new legislation. A point you have aptly made in your email.

Anyway, I'd be interested to hear when you receive a response.

Very best
Celia

----- Original Message -----
From: steven.allan@mensaid.co.uk
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 9:19 PM
Subject: The Bill is a major missed opportunity.

These PEOPLE do not live in a democracy especially when it comes to reasoning and a sound argument against their dictatorial view.

We need to find another way.

Power is everything to these PEOPLE - consequences are irrelevant.

Steve

----- Original Message -----
From: Tulsa_Area_Fathers_Rights_Association@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 9:20 PM
Subject: The Bill is a major missed opportunity.

David,
This is a good write up .

----- Original Message -----
From: staretheridge08@hotmail.co.uk
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: The Bill is a major missed opportunity.

Hi David

To be honest I've seen the inner workings of the Tory party & I wouldn't keep any hope of them keeping promises!

We hope one day that UKIP will get chance to form a government & will try to put common sense into action.

No need for spending time debating things that don't really matter but sadly they do. A UKIP government would sort out the essentials like protecting our children, looking after families, encouraging families to stay together, making the welfare & tax system support families staying together, getting services to work together to ensure kids who need looking after are known so agencies work together.

Then once kids, families, education, care etc sorted can move onto next thing!

I hope we get the chance to use our wide range of talents, experience & common sense ideas to make life better for us all!

Kindest regards

Star Etheridge

----- Original Message -----
From: kensanderson@fsmail.net
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 8:15 AM
Subject: The Bill is a major missed opportunity.

Hi Dave

This is an excellent piece and very well researched and written. I'm not sure what the response will be but it surely should make them think about failing again and what will be thought of them. I actually don't think that getting the Bill through the Commons will be such a big problem even with Labours indifference but the House of Lords is full of ex judges and womens lib sympathisers so that might be a bigger job.

I'm not sure if you are aware but I have actually resigned from FNF. I'm not able to go into the details of why but it wasn't a decision I took lightly. I am working for the next month or so as a volunteer but I am not the CEO any more. I hope they take some advice and start to do more work with good people like you who really want to see change. There are a good number of people like you who work hard without any recognition and have businesses to run or jobs to hold down at the same time.

Please keep in touch and I will still be talking to Tim Loughton, Edward Timpson and others.

Ken

http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/lettersenttotherthonmichaelgovempdatedmarch2013.htm

----- Original Message -----
From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
To: officeofmarklancaster@parliament.uk
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: Shared Parenting reform

Mark Lancester MP
Suite 102, Milton Keynes Business Centre
Foxhunter Drive
Milton Keynes
MK14 6GD
01908 686830
officeofmarklancaster@parliament.uk

14th February 2013

Dear Mark Lancester,

Re: Shared Parenting reform

Almost 3 years after the coalition government of David Cameron and Nicholas Clegg was voted into office, its draft legislation on family justice has finally been published. Articles in the media have waxed about the government's "shared parenting" proposal claiming it assures “meaningful” parent/child involvement post-divorce. It clearly does not. The words of the proposal are as starkly plain as can be and there is no requirement that parents (i.e. fathers) have a meaningful relationship with their children. Judges would be required to order that only if the words were in the family law legislation. They are not. Commentators should read the proposal.

What does a parent’s (i.e. father) “ongoing involvement” in his child’s life mean? That’s not defined, so it can mean anything any individual judge wishes it to mean. Perhaps a Christmas card once a year would suffice. What about monthly “visits” via Skype with his child whose mother has been allowed to move with him/her thousands of miles away?

Should it become law; the legislation will make not the least difference in the custody edicts of British family courts. Those rulings reflect judicial prejudice far more than they do the directives of applicable law. After all, no British law requires judges to give custody to mothers 90% of the time, but that’s what they do. No law requires those judges to refuse to enforce the meagre contact rights of children, but they do that too. There is nothing in the proposal that will change that mindset.

Against this backdrop, tens of thousands of children a year are losing contact with their fathers because of a failing family court system and disastrous custody arrangements. (The Telegraph 16 Nov 2009). This is a national disgrace. Anyone who wanted to could see the deleterious effects of fatherlessness in the streets almost every day of the week. A few minutes’ thought would tell anyone that as a simple matter of economics, keeping fathers and children connected makes sense. How much money do we spend every year trying to address social problems – crime, drug and alcohol abuse, boy’s educational difficulties, teen pregnancy etc. – that fathers themselves could hugely ameliorate? The reasons to keep fathers in children’s lives are many and there is no real counterargument.

As to Australia’s shared parenting experience anecdotes are not evidence of a rule, nor must they trump human rights. Far from the 2006 reforms being a failure misleadingly reported by the Norgrove review the Australian Institute of Family Studies evaluation concluded that "The philosophy of equal shared parental responsibility is overwhelmingly supported by parents, legal system professionals and service professionals." Litigation rates have fallen and the Equal Parental Responsibility presumption is beneficial and working well for children, including children under 3, according to parents. (Kaspiew, et al 2009) Opinion polls in Australia have confirmed those assessments.

The attached parliamentary speeches by your Australian conservative party counterparts confirm their continuing support for the 2006 legislation that they introduced. In sum, what we saw in Australia was not the failure of shared parenting but the latest round in an ideological struggle orchestrated by anti-shared parenting forces in the Gillard led Labor government that is analogous to a painful and unnecessary courtroom squabble between former spouses. Children’s rights to their mothers and fathers must transcend party politics.

In the light of your well known support of genuine shared parenting we respectfully request that you move the below highlighted revisions to the UK government‘s timid proposal. “As Emery (2007) points out, a legal presumption does not abandon children’s best interests, but provides a clear, evidence-based definition of children’s needs in the divorce transition.” (Kruk 2012)

Proposed Framework

(2A) A court, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection(4)(a) or (7), is as respects each parent within subsection (6)(a) to presume, unless the contrary is shown, that substantial, meaningful involvement of that parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child's welfare.

Definition

The term, substantial, meaningful involvement in this part denotes a parenting arrangement in which both parents not only have equal rights and responsibilities for their children's welfare and upbringing, but also have an active role to play in the everyday routines of their children's care and development. Each remain as salient attachment figures in their children’s lives, the child spending substantial but not necessarily equal time with each parent.

Substantial meaningful involvement gives emphasis to maintaining or maximizing the child's emotional psychological and physical well-being as much as possible. The term substantial, meaningful involvement encompasses shared day-to-day care of children and equal authority regarding the children’s education, medical care, and religious upbringing.

For the purposes of subsection (2A), a child will be taken to spend substantial time with a parent only if:

a) The time the child spends with the parent includes both (i) Days and nights that fall on weekends and holidays; and (ii) Days and nights that do not fall on weekends or holidays; and

(b) The time the child spends with the parent allows the parent to be involved in:

(i) The child's daily and nightly routine; and

(ii) Occasions and events that are of particular significance to the child; and

(c) The time the child spends with the parent allows the child to be involved in occasions and events that are of special significance to the parent.

As a highly regarded family values parliamentarian your endorsement of the submitted amendments would be most persuasive and I have included recently published research recommending public policy in favour of shared residential parenting for your consideration. To paraphrase Professor Linda Nielsen (2013) ‘Misconceptions that are not grounded on a broad spectrum of up to date, methodologically sound and statistically important empirical data have an impact on custody decisions and custody laws. By empirical data I mean research studies where quantitative data has been statistically analyzed and published in peer reviewed academic journals – in contrast to articles where opinions or theories are being presented, often without benefit of peer review.’ In that spirit the attached studies present current research refuting erroneous common beliefs related to shared residential parenting.

Yours sincerely,

David Mortimer

Sent on behalf of Joint Parenting Association.

docs/Parenting Time and Shared Residential Custody Ten Common Myths.pdf

docs/Senator George Brandis.pdf

docs/Shared Parenting After Divorce A Review of Shared Residential Parenting Research.pdf

docs/Arguments for an Equal Parental Responsibility Presumption In Contested Child Custody.pdf

docs/Christensen, George, MP.pdf

docs/Mr Simpkins MP.pdf

----- Original Message -----
From: sobk13@gmail.com
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 2:00 PM
Subject: The government's "shared parenting" proposal? 10th April 2013

Hi David,

I think it's a standard reply.

Kind regards,
Natasha

----- Original Message -----
From: oliver@cyriax.co.uk
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 2:02 PM
Subject: The government's "shared parenting" proposal? 10th April 2013

David

It means precisely nothing.

Children benefit from a continuing relationship, which could mean anything, if it is appropriate, which could mean anything too.

Oliver

----- Original Message -----
From: geraldcash@btinternet.com
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 2:06 PM
Subject: The government's "shared parenting" proposal? 10th April 2013

Hi Dave,

It is typical of a politician's replies. It is well crafted to say very little, but use a lot of words.

Basically he is saying that there is no bias in the family courts, there has been careful consideration to the wording of the proposed Bill and the best they could find to define a father's contact was 'meaningful'.

I wonder what research he consulted to come to the conclusion that Family Courts are not biased. CAFCASS has to be the most biased organisation, just look at the long list of complaints they currently are working through.

It would seem that they are trying to placate the father, but pander to the mother. The governent are good at giving the impression they are caring and providing requisite services to assist those in need, but when it actually comes down to it, the service they provide is inadequate.

I thought the research and background that went into your letter was excellent and really deserved more consideration than the dismissal received.

Gerald

----- Original Message -----
From: anne.harris4@yahoo.co.uk
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 2:07 PM
Subject: The government's "shared parenting" proposal? 10th April 2013

Dave – not much.

The word ‘involvement’ could mean that the father may not see his child/children but he must support them money-wise.

The first three paragraphs seem ok (on my first reading of the letter) but the rest makes me feel that there will be no difference in the Family Courts as we’ve previously seen over the years.

Anne.

----- Original Message -----
From: media@dial.pipex.com
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 2:43 PM
Subject: The government's "shared parenting" proposal? 10th April 2013

David,

Exactly what you would expect from mealy-mouthed politicians. You are quite correct in all you say. You might as well pass a law requiring better weather. It is utterly meaningless and will make not the slightest difference. I note that a “package of other measures” is proposed. Perhaps the Government has now had time to read the Proposal I put forward ten years ago. I think they must be slow readers! They are well behind the curve. Of course, they will screw it up as they usually do but I suppose we must be grateful for baby steps.

I am proceeding with my data protection work which, if I am successful, will make a difference though it will not solve all the problems.

It is interesting to note that in the exchanges of a few weeks ago, I challenged all and sundry to show me that the present system is better than my Proposal or that someone had a better idea than mine or that mine wouldn’t work and was fatally flawed. I have put this challenge out many times over the past ten years and I have yet to receive a single reply. I must conclude that interested parties are not interested enough to even read my Proposal or that they prefer to campaign rather than have a system which will remove meaning from their lives. What would these organisations do if there was an ideal (though not perfect) system?

I like Joint Parenting rather than Shared Parenting. The former implies cooperation; the latter division.

Kind regards,

Paul.

----- Original Message -----
From: joakimidisyuri@yahoo.com.au
To: fr4e@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 3:22 PM
Subject: The government's "shared parenting" proposal? 10th April 2013

The penultimate paragraph exposes the government's sham!!!

----- Original Message -----
From: cjeconrad@yahoo.co.uk
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 3:20 PM
Subject: The government's "shared parenting" proposal? 10th April 2013

Hi David

The letter just sets out what he has already said before doesn't it? So no surprise there.

I actually went through the comments made at the 2nd reading and then the committee stage sittings on 14 March when I was preparing my Submissions on the bill which I have now submitted. I'm not allowed to disseminate them yet until they have been circulated to the Committee members etc otherwise I'd send them to you.

The way I look at it is this - the legislation will not make any practical difference and the Judges will be using their discretion to decide. The real problem is this: how do you legislate against the mindset? I don't think these MPs realize that someone who is determined to break that child/father (or child/mother relationship for that matter) will not be dissuaded by this legislation...

Very best
Celia

----- Original Message -----
From: kensanderson@fsmail.net
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 4:15 PM
Subject: The government's "shared parenting" proposal? 10th April 2013

Dave

Unfortunately, I think it is weak and further adds to the confusion of what involvement actually means rather than clarifying it. In effect unless there is any guidance for judges and for CAFCAAS and others, then very little will change at all. It might be worth asking your MP if he is happy with the response to your question that was originally put because I can't see how he can be!

Ken

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard.Fromholc@total.com
To: ukfamilylawreform@yahoogroups.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 5:13 PM
Subject: The government's "shared parenting" proposal? 10th April 2013

David, well done for trying.

Lip service and a standard “Sit-on-the-fence” reply is all they will do!

They should all hang their heads in shame for all the damage they continue to inflict on the children.

When will they really act in the child’s best interests? When will they really stop aiding and abetting the child abducting mothers?

This is criminal and they should be punished. It is simply “Child Abuse” of the highest order!

Regards

Richard

----- Original Message -----
From: cliffordmiller@cliffordmiller.com
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 5:42 PM
Subject: The government's "shared parenting" proposal? 10th April 2013

I thought your proposed amendment is helpful and forward thinking.

Otherwise when is it "appropriate and in the child's best interests"? What are the guidelines? It is a matter of whim of the judge. Clearly there must be factors which any Court could take into account as a checklist - after all we have the welfare checklist.

This will just end up with the Judges overriding the intentions of Parliament as they do all the time.

How can the family justice review panel not find bias when they operate on the basis that children under secondary school age should not have joint residence - not being separated from their mothers on the assumption it is harmful to the child? Isn't that bias? Why do they assume fathers cannot look after their own children when most do before a divorce.

I of course do not know what the knowledge/research is about the value of the relationship a) with both parents b) with a father alone c) with mother alone d) with both parents even though divorced.

As matters stand the Family Court judges do override the intentions of Parliament. Anyone can get a divorce at any time without satisfying the statutory requirements - all you have to do is make the nastiest of allegations of unreasonable conduct and make sure the other party is so put off carrying on with the marriage they do not contest the divorce because the marriage has irretrievably broken down - that is what happens all the time and divorce lawyers advise as a matter of course that there is no point contesting - but in fact it is shown that early intervention saves marriages from divorce but that plays no part in the process - the process is geared to ensuring anyone can get a divorce.

----- Original Message -----
From: fathersunionaustralia@hotmail.com
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:46 PM
Subject: The government's "shared parenting" proposal? 10th April 2013

Nice one, the real problem is the feminists administering the law don't see it that way and are actively and deliberately perverting justice to the detriment of children and families, there is not accountability here in Australia and I suspect everywhere is a corrupt.

What am trying to bring to Australia is what the Canadians are doing http://www.crpa.ca/ let me know what you think ...

----- Original Message -----
From: jameswilliamsgb@aol.co.uk
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:49 PM
Subject: The government's "shared parenting" proposal? 10th April 2013

It's a pithy response without giving much substance.
I would be interested how he could be so dismissive of the charge of
bias. Was the easy charge of DV considered as a proven tactic to
frustrate contact or the just as effective deterrent whereby one parent
is paying out of their own pocket and the other is not?
There was no mention of enforcement of court orders or educating law
enforcement. Feminists are usually heavily involved with these matters
and I doubt whether anything will be produced that will compel
conformity by intransigent and psychotic individuals especially if it
were to work against women.
James

----- Original Message -----
From: bpw@freenetname.co.uk
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 7:26 PM
Subject: The government's "shared parenting" proposal? 10th April 2013

The phrase "the family justice review panel found no evidence of bias" is obviously written by people who have not looked at the situation, or are mentally deranged, or villains.

The question for Timpson is, which of these is it and what is he going to do about this answer if he ever finds it.

I would reply in this way, as these people are wicked.

Barry

----- Original Message -----
From: michaelwiffen1@googlemail.com
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 7:53 PM
Subject: The government's "shared parenting" proposal? 10th April 2013

Firstly, an excellent well worded letter to Mark Lancaster MP!

So he wants to assure you that the Government does recognise that a father's role in his child's life is an important one! Oh right, WHY don't they enforce contact orders then to parents they already believe to be good and fit parents!

You can have all these bills, clauses, ammendments, legislation, laws and the like!

You can read through the above(bills, clauses, ammendments, legislation, laws and the like), and all looks well and good in theory. But when in the courts very little consideration is given to it in practice!

How many parents, before/during/after a relationship are actually aware of, or read legislation and their ongoing ammendments! That's all theory - All parents want to do is the practical side of bringing their children up!

The communication between parents on the whole breaks down because ONE parent doesn't want to communicate, as they hold ALL the cards, and don't want to give a card away!

All that parental legislation involvement waffle in his last paragraph is utter rubbish. They create more problems/disputes between parents than the parent/s created by/amongst his/her/themselves! All their trying to do is make out that the problems are caused by the parents, and that the Govt & Courts are their to resolve problems and are not creating more additional problems/issues!

The link doesn't include the letter of response from Edward Timpson MP! Is the letter posted somewhere else on the Ukfamilylawreform website?

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: cornelius.pope@ymail.com
To: ukfamilylawreform@yahoogroups.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 8:14 PM
Subject: The government's "shared parenting" proposal? 10th April 2013

In other words it is exactly the same as "Parental separation : children's needs and parents responsibilities" in 2006. Now, wasn't that a big success!

It beggars belief, the only thing that has ever been crap is welfare reporting and CAFCASS. The only thing that is never investigated, in the mile high stack of reports, is CAFCASS.

All there is to family law is a pitifully inadequate report prepared by an even more pitiful CAFCASS Officer and nothing is ever done about it.

----- Original Message -----
From: patterson.alastair@gmail.com
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 8:34 PM
Subject: The government's "shared parenting" proposal? 10th April 2013

Hi Dave,

I have posted. It is more of the same that did not work last time.

As you will see, in my view, and ever since the old court welfare service, the only problem has ever been the welfare reporting and CAFCASS. At the end of the day all there is to family law is the CAFCASS Report.

The best solution is to start trashing CAFCASS offices.

Alastair

----- Original Message -----
From: jean.nunn@gmail.com
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:42 PM
Subject: The government's "shared parenting" proposal? 10th April 2013

David
Thank you for copying me in to your emails
What I've learnt over the past twelve months is that we / children / the elderly are a community - with a 'value'. Since all services were private used everything has to be costed. The more something is 'open to interpretation' the more 'value' is placed on it. The corrupt lawyers and judges can strings things out building up costs etc. they do not care about the best interest of the child - children should be loved and shared with their parents. Sadly this is not going to happen whilst parents, lawyers and judges cannot agree.
Blessings
Jean

----- Original Message -----
From: steven.allan@mensaid.co.uk
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 10:29 PM
Subject: The government's "shared parenting" proposal? 10th April 2013

Hi David,

It's all bull shite my friend, cut and paste crap copied from standard text.

Look at the new definition of domestic abuse discussion on the http://www.mensaid.co.uk/ Forum or look under On Topic.

Regards
Steve

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael.lunn@sustainus.com
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 8:52 AM
Subject: The government's "shared parenting" proposal? 10th April 2013

Pretty neutral typical Government response, not written by the Minister. Clearly not aware of the distress and impacts on fathers up and down the country.

I suggest you try to have a face to face meeting through Mark. Happy to support you.

Cllr Michael Lunn
Director

----- Original Message -----
From: dean3500@gmail.com
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 4:50 PM
Subject: The government's "shared parenting" proposal? 10th April 2013

Completely insufficient in my view. We could publish that on AVfM if you like, along with an editorial about why it's woefully insufficient. It'd be easier if you would write it, or someone else, than us having to write it, but we'd want it as stinging and rebuking as possible.

----- Original Message -----
From: patrick.parkinson@sydney.edu.au
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 12:26 AM
Subject: UK Family Law Reform

Dear Mr Mortimer

I agree with your view that the proposed legislative change will not alter the law. The proposed amendment reflects the long-standing position in English law, going back far beyond the Children Act 1989. This is what an English judge wrote in 1973:

“no court should deprive a child of access to either parent unless it is wholly satisfied that it is in the interests of that child that access should cease, and that is a conclusion at which a court should be extremely slow to arrive.” (Wrangham J in M. v M. (1973) 2 All ER 81 at 85).

I think the proposed amendment just reiterates a view expressed 40 years ago. However, I do not want to be involved further in the English debates on this issue.

Kind regards

Patrick Parkinson | Professor
Faculty of Law

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY

----- Original Message -----
From: margaret.gardener@btopenworld.com
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 12:29 AM
Subject: The government's "shared parenting" proposal? 10th April 2013

Hi Dave,

Here is my response - not very good at these, but of the top of my head

Edward Timpson PUSS for Children Does not address all your issues.

Para 4 gives joint responsibility, but with joint responsibility one must have access to carry out that responsibility.

Indirect access ; the courts decide on whose evidence?

Para 6 – states that Parents do not have equal share or rights of the child, the courts decide for the child, so why do they have joint responsibility when that responsibility cannot be carried out?
How are the child’s views assessed, who makes that decision especially about babies, at present not often by those necessarily with experience of parenthood, including judges whose partner or nanny may bring up their children, therefore do not understand the needs of a child. This applies especially to babies.

When one parent is refusing access, how are they supposed to go to bespoke parenting programmes to improve communication when one is normally determined to stop access, and disobey court rulings, there is no consequences stated – what happened to joint responsibility
He has not mentioned consequences of not abiding by the court decisions – as of now court orders are broken all the time, therefore creating greater costs, damage to children, as no-one addresses consequences of breaking court rules.

All the above applies to parent(s) having been falsely accused and either had their case dropped or found with no charges to answer - and are very often denied access to the child. They also cannot have a family life, as most are rejected by social services from being with children under the age of 18 and there is no sensible assessment and guidance imposed for those in this situation.
Access by the child to the parent, is refused, therefore also denying the child a right to family life with their natural parent(s).

Nothing new for you I expect, but just my thoughts.

take care

Margaret
FASO

----- Original Message -----
From: dotafeedback@gmail.com
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 11:26 AM
Subject: The government's "shared parenting" proposal? 10th April 2013

Hi David,

Many thanks for keeping me in the loop, very much appreciated.

My thoughts on Timpson's reply, is that it is the same tired old collection of weasel words, rolled out by every government for the past 4 decades. It is designed to massage the false perception that our legislators actually care about the welfare of the nation's children, and that they appear to be doing something to improve Family Law legislation and procedural practices. Unfortunately their rhetoric does not match their actions and simply serves to deceive the community for political expediency.

There are a host of primary causal factors, each of which in their own right serve to render both the law and the procedural practices impotent. These appear to have been conveniently overlooked, such as the sole parent primary custody model, the lack of effective enforcement of contact orders and the way the common use of perjury and kidnapping practices are able to be executed with absolute impunity. In addition, there are a number of extremely subjective and ambiguous definitions such as "In the best interest of the Child" and "Regular parental Contact", which are open to infinite interpretation. Other factors that render contemporary family law unworkable and abuse the human rights of those seeking justice, is the fact that parents have no legal parenting rights and the way litigants are regularly encouraged to make a pre-emptive first strike, in order to obtain the control and sole custody of any children and the lion's share of any assets.

There are many more legal loopholes which render contemporary family law ineffectional, and allows it to be labeled a draconian, destructive blight on society.

Following is the second last paragraph of Timpson's reply, I think it says it all:

"It is important to note that this legislation will not entitle parents to an equal share of a child's time or a "right" to contact with the child. The Government has been clear that the child's welfare will remain the courts paramount consideration in decisions that relate to the child's upbringing."

I hope my response has been helpful David, and please keep in touch. You are doing a spendid job in obtaining valuable responses from those complicit in the destructive practices of the Family Law industry. These are important responses by which we can start to hold some high profile people accountable.

Kind regards
Peter

http://www.familybriefing.com/

http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/court.htm

comments25thjanuary2013

A political problem' requires a political solution.

We need funding to take the next logical step.

Sort code 110067 Account number 00460306

http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/ukfamilylawreform/