Press Releases

• Families Need Fathers welcomes proposals from the Government today which give fathers six months paternity leave
• No matter how young or old the child is it is best for them to have two equally involved parents sharing the care of their children 

Families Need Fathers (FNF) welcomes proposals from the Government today which give fathers the legal right to take the place of the mother at home for the last three months of their nine month maternity leave and the right to an additional three months unpaid off. 

Our current parental leave system just reinforces the traditional gender roles of ‘mothers as carers and fathers as breadwinners’ which no longer apply to today’s parents. No matter how young or old the child is it is best for them to have two equally involved parents sharing the care of their children.

This is a step in the right direction towards allowing both parents to fulfil their responsibilities from day one. What needs to come next is the end of ‘maternity’ and ‘paternity’ leave. This should be replaced with an allocation of parental leave to be divided between parents as they see fit, allowing them to choose how they work and parent.

Becky Jarvis, Policy Officer for FNF said “After over ten years of campaigning by FNF the government has realised that the world has moved on from the pipe and slippers stereotype of the father. Today's dads want to be there for their children from day one.”

Families Need Fathers - campaigning for Shared Parenting whatever the family circumstances.

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

• Unacceptable delays in the Family Court System are robbing children of the love and care of parents
• Britain's Family Law system is in meltdown and it is the children who are suffering most
• Children's lives are being damaged by the poor performance of Cafcass, the organisation which acts as the eyes and ears of family court judges. The main union of its staff, NAPO, has issued a statement of concern about delays and unsatisfactory levels of service, and shared parenting groups such as Families Need Fathers wholly agree.  

Cafcass has a difficult job to do in both public law (children going into care) and private law (divorce and separation), and its staff are liable to be criticised whatever they decide.  But the delays in producing reports have become totally unacceptable, and the government must take action.  How can it be right for a child to have to wait nine months to see their mother or father while the paperwork is shuffled or a caseworker found?

Cafcass' workload is heavier than it should be thanks to this country's failing family law process.  When separating parents cannot agree on the arrangements for the children, the current system places an unfair amount of power in the hands of one parent and then invites the two of them to attack each other. 

The administration of family law in this country is in dire need of reform, and shared parenting groups such as Families Need Fathers are looking to the next government to tackle the problem.

Jon Davies, CEO of Families Need Fathers underlines that ‘a childhood can never be replaced. Too many children are missing out on the love and care of both parents and their extended families through these terrible delays. There has to be a better alternative to this crazy system that encourages families to tear themselves apart and is, in itself, child abuse.’

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

• One of the biggest family policy research projects has been undertaken in Australia which evaluates their 2006 shared parenting legislation.
• Shared Parenting legislation an urgent priority for the UK Government.

The Australian Government has just published a report by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, which evaluates their 2006 shared parenting legislation.

It is one of the biggest family policy research projects ever undertaken. 28,000 parents, grandparents and family law professionals provided information. Thus its findings can be seen as authoritative.

These findings include:

Most parents with a child under 18 years old agreed that the continuing involvement of each parent following parental separation is beneficial for the children (81% of parents interviewed in 2009). In 2006, the proportion of parents believing that the continuing involvement of each parent following parental separation is beneficial for the children was slightly lower (77%).
Most parents in the 2009 survey believed that spending approximately half the time with each parent can be appropriate, even for children under 3 years old.
An Australian Government report published before the 2006 Act indicated that there were perceptions in the community about an 80–20 rule in arrangements for children to spend time with their parents after separation, with mothers mostly having their child for 80% of the time. The evaluation data show that advice consistent with such a rule was provided by lawyers much less often after the reforms than prior to the reforms.
Parents who contributed jointly to decisions about their child were more likely than other parents to indicate full compliance in providing child support payments.
 
The report covers the Act comprehensively. One theme is that while the Act made progress on dealing with domestic violence and other abuse, more needs to be done. The same could be said here, though the UK Government has rightly introduced a raft of legislation to protect parents and children, and allows the courts to make protective orders when allegations are upheld, including Prohibited Steps Orders, Non-Molestation and Occupation Orders. It is crucial that such accusations are proven in court. Sadly, it is all too common that false accusations are made to exclude the other parent from a child’s life, damaging the child’s prospects in life.

Jon Davies, Chief Executive of Families Need Fathers, commented “this evaluation is a major step forward to understanding shared parenting and the impact of shared parenting legislation. Australia is planning ahead with future generations whose parenting will be better because they have known the love of two parents. It is time the UK followed suit.”

NOTES FOR EDITORS

The Australian report can be obtained from https://aifs.gov.au/publications/evaluation-2006-family-law-reforms or we have a copy here: 

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

• 90% of dads with young children believe it is important for fathers have the option to take paid paternity leave.
• The Government has launched a campaign to remind dads of their rights at work as many fathers are not aware of what is available to them.

Flexible working is very important to dads who want to share the care of their children. According to research published today by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) more than half (56%) of dads surveyed with children 16 and under said that they would look for an employer who offers flexible working when choosing a new job.
The overwhelming majority (91%) of dads with children aged five or under believe it is important that fathers have the option to take paid paternity leave. Nearly two thirds (62%) believe a dad’s relationship with their child will suffer if they are not at home after the baby is born.
BIS has launched a campaign to remind dads of their rights at work as, although there has been a change in parenting, many fathers are not aware of what is available to them:
·         Request flexible working – parents of a child, 16 or under, are entitled to request flexible working, such as flexi time, part time or working from home, and, by law, an employer must seriously consider the request;
·         Paid paternity leave – new dads can take two weeks’ paid leave. They need to notify their employer 15 weeks before the due date; and
·         Parental leave – dads have the right to take up to 13 weeks unpaid leave until their child is five years old.
The campaign to promote what is available to dads is a valuable first step, as it is clear that dads don’t know all that is available to them.  Sadly, knowing what is available is sometimes not enough.  Ian is a separated parent, he asked his employer for flexible working as he needed to pick his son up from school. This was refused to him but the female employees who worked in this company were able to work flexibly. Employers need to be more responsive to fathers’ needs and policy needs to go further to ensure that either parent has the flexibility that is so crucial for any type of family.
Becky Jarvis, Policy Officer said “no matter how young or old the child is it is best for them to have two equally involved parents sharing the care of their children, and supporting working fathers is crucial to this.”

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

• Lord Justice Wall accepts that there is a “perfectly respectable argument” for a review of Payne v Payne
• Families Need Fathers believes that the systemic delays in the family courts will always prohibit child welfare being properly considered and protected in relocation cases
• Legislation is urgently required

On 9th February 2010, Lord Justice Wall pronounced judgment in the first permission to appeal hearing on a leave to remove matter since December 2009, when Sir Bob Geldof and The Custody Minefield released a report criticising the courts for their application of out-dated case law in “leave to remove” cases. Families Need Fathers’ Director of Communications was present at this.

In his judgment, Lord Justice Wall commented, ‘there has been considerable criticism of Payne v Payne in certain quarters, and there is a perfectly respectable argument for the proposition that it places too great an emphasis on the wishes and feelings of the relocating parent, and ignores or relegates the harm done of children by a permanent breach of the relationship which children have with the left behind parent.’ He went on to say, ‘this is a perfectly respectable argument, and would, I have no doubt, in the right case constitute a “compelling reason” for an appeal to be heard.’

In this case however, Lord Justice Wall goes on to refuse the father’s permission to appeal, his reasons being: that the trial judge found the mother’s reasons for her wanting to relocate were genuine; and if the Supreme Court were to find that the weighting of evidence was wrongly applied by the judiciary in this and other leave to remove cases, a retrial would be likely. Wall stated his belief that a further delay, which retrial would inevitably cause, would not be in this family’s interests.

As contemporary scientific research proves, harm is not only caused to children from the extremes of a permanent breach to their relationship with the left behind parent, but by children not having both parents involved in their day-to-day care and schooling. What is more, Wall’s decision is not child-centred when he states that the relocating parent made a strong case for her moving, as he makes no mention of the impact on the children of how relocation may affect their sociological, psychological, emotional and educational development.

LJ Wall refuses permission to appeal due to his perception that the family would suffer harm caused by a further delay.  Delay in family proceedings is inevitable given the current and ongoing crisis in the courts. Thus, LJ Wall's reasoning prohibits the proper development of law, and is likely to continue to do so until the unforeseeable day when the courts are not plagued by delay.

For 39 years, the courts have allowed relocation and leave to remove without properly considering the impact on the children. Now that contemporary research confirms a risk of harm, it is entirely unacceptable that the courts continue to ignore such compelling evidence while upholding the legal niceties of process, procedure and precedent. The system is well served and protected, children are not.

Please find a more detailed appraisal here.

What do you think?

Send us feedback!