Free information index
PROMOTING AN ABUSE OF CHILDREN
Opposition to a statutory ‘presumption of contact’
NSPCC’s FUNDAMENTAL ERROR:
There already is a ‘presumption of contact’ (in case law). The existence of this governing presumption (in case law) has an identical effect to the same presumption if embodied in statute. It governs the outcome of cases. To install a duplicate ‘presumption of contact’ into statute:
- would not (as the NSPCC
claims) ‘transform’ court proceedings
NSPCC POLICY: AT ODDS with ITSELF
In consequence, the NSPCC campaigns to stop an event happening in the future, which:
- has already happened
Practical Consequences of the NSPCC’s Error: A Form of Child Abuse
NSPCC opposition to the ‘presumption of contact’ is opposition to the concept that, when it is safe, and when there is no good reason to the contrary, each case of divorce or separation should be approached on the basis that children should at least be allowed to meet their parents.
The stance set out above is direct NSPCC support for the obverse proposition: that even when it is safe, and even when there is no good reason to the contrary, each case should be approached on the basis that children should not be allowed to see their parents at all – unless it can be proved in court that for a parent and child to actually meet is ‘in the child’s best interests’.
A presumption which does not exist can be defeated by an objection of no weight. Hence the legal system advocated by the NSPCC is that any objection to contact, no matter how frivolous, should be sufficient to stop all child-parent contact completely.
Adoption of the NSPCC principle would mean that, for want of the relevant presumption, all or almost all court applications by parents (no matter how blameless) to see their children at all would fail – which is why this position was abandoned decades ago as inoperable, and the contrary position enshrined in case law.
These realities remain ‘hidden’ from the NSPCC, which in consequence seeks a step backward, to barbarism.