Press Releases

30 June 2014

On 30th June, a written Ministerial statement confirmed that charges for use of the Child Maintenance Service are to be introduced in August 2014.

Whilst the drive to encourage greater cooperation between separated parents on maintenance issues is commendable, the use of charges for the statutory maintenance system is a blunt tool. Whilst all parents have an obligation to provide for their children, financially and emotionally, the high level of charges could make things worse for separated families rather than better.

Jerry Karlin, Chair of Families Need Fathers, commented, “A maintenance system needs to provide a platform for sustainable arrangements to be maintained. Charging paying parents an extra 20% if they are experiencing genuine financial problems risks catching them in a vicious cycle of accumulating debts and arrears owed to the Government, rather than helping to support their children.”

“The Child Maintenance Service must display a commitment to signposting paying parents who have problems with debt to specialist financial support services. Using the statutory system simply as a tool to punish the small minority of parents who try to avoid paying maintenance would not be in the best interests of separated families.”

Families Need Fathers has produced updated Factsheets on both the CSA and the Child Maintenance Service to assist parents struggling with child maintenance issues, available free to all FNF members.

ENDS

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!

• Families Need Fathers is pleased to see the Government looking seriously at the issues that face separating families.
• The Green Paper will hopefully result in a recognition, at last, that children need both parents and both extended families.

Families Need Fathers (FNF) is encouraged by several of the proposals in the Government's Green Paper and is pleased to see the Government looking seriously at the issues that face separating families.

The Green Paper addresses the pressing issues within the Family Justice System and is proposing a comprehensive review. We hope that this will result in a recognition, at last, that children need both parents and both extended families. Other jurisdictions provide a much better service to families and it is time that our system learnt from this.

For years FNF has been lobbying to make proper mediation compulsory before attending court, something that has proven successful in other countries. We are encouraged to see the Government will now consult on this but emphasise that this will have to be of genuine quality and properly resourced.

Most promising is the Government’s commitment to remove the requirement for grandparents to obtain the leave of the court before applying for a contact order. At last they are recognised as a vital part of a child's life.

We are also hopeful that the Government will improve the information available for grandparents seeking better contact with their grandchildren. This follows the FNF campaign 'Beyond the Nuclear' which asked for these important changes. We are pleased to see the Government's commitment to address these issues.

Jon Davies, CEO says “Families Need Fathers welcomes the proposals in the Green Paper and believes they will have a major impact on the quarter of Britain's children living in separated families. We look forward to working with Government to take these proposals forward. Decades of damage cannot be solved with one green paper.”

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!

• 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!