Press Releases

• 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!

• Family justice system failing children caught up in conflict

• Groundbreaking seminar on how to better manage cases of children unreasonably resistant to parental contact

Some of the failings of the family justice system in this country have been well documented over the last few years. High conflict and intractable cases are not being well managed by the family justice system and more needs to be done to educate those dealing with such cases to better help the children caught up in the conflict and support the parents to achieve better outcomes for their children.

Families Need Fathers (FNF) and Jewish Unity for Multiple Parenting (JUMP) are pleased to launch a landmark, high level multidisciplinary seminar on 16th June 2010, hosted by Andrew Selous MP in the House of Commons. This seminar is groundbreaking in providing a platform for a leading international Professor of Family Law and highly regarded UK Deputy District Judge at the Principal Registry of the Family Division in London to discuss these issues.

Julius Hinks, FNF Director of Communications said “the current Coalition Government has made a commitment to review the family justice system in their programme for Government published on 21 May 2010. We hope that the review will take on board the need for better case management in these most difficult cases, particularly affecting children at risk of being alienated from one of their parents. This is not a gender specific issue as fathers as well as mothers can negatively influence the children from engaging with their other parent following high conflict family breakdown."

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

• Families Need Fathers publishes a Bill on Shared Parenting on 7th April
• The Bill would make it much easier for both parents to stay in a child's life following separation or divorce

The charity Families Need Fathers publishes a Bill on Shared Parenting on 7th April. It would make it much easier for both parents to stay in a child's life following separation or divorce. It would also provide appropriate safeguards in the minority of cases where shared parenting is not the best solution.

There is abundant evidence that a child's chances in life are greatly improved if both parents continue to be involved significantly in their lives following separation or divorce. They stand a better chance of getting educational qualifications, of getting a job and remaining in employment, and of staying out of prison than children who do not have two active parents.

Currently the law too often has a divisive impact on families, treating one parent as the sole carer and the other as the sole financial provider. The reality is very different.  Very often both parents want to play a full role in the child's life, and are well able to do so, but the law prevents this.

Shared parenting legislation is increasingly common elsewhere in the world. Australia, France, Denmark, Belgium and a number of US states are examples. Australia has had such legislation since 2006 and recent research shows the benefits are already starting to emerge.

Jon Davies, chief executive of Families Need Fathers, commented "our Bill takes account of experience elsewhere. In the next Parliament we need shared parenting legislation urgently (and comparable legislation elsewhere in the UK). The UK is falling behind the rest of the world. We need family law fit for the 21st century."

Notes for editors:

The text of the Bill can be found here

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

• Families Need Fathers calls for action to displace Payne v Payne [2001] 1 FLR 1052 by the Supreme Court, as the guiding case on relocation as a matter of urgency.

Relocation is a major cause of distress for the child and the parent left behind and it is likely to result in a complete loss of contact between the “non-resident parent” and their children. The leading authority in relocation cases is still Payne. The premise behind Payne v Payne is that not allowing the primary carer to take their child to live in another country will have an effect on the primary carer’s psychological wellbeing and hence the child's.

 There is a growing consensus among Judges, notably the President of the Family Division (Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50) and most recently Mr Justice Mostyn (F v M [2010] EWHC 1346) that a review of Payne v Payne is needed.  Mr Justice Mostyn has argued that Payne rewards “selfishness and uncontrolled emotions". Family Law professionals also agree that its time is up.

Lord Justice Thorpe,who delivered the leading opinion in Payne,told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme yesterday (30 June 2010) that there is a need to “re-evaluate”.

Becky Jarvis , Policy Officer says

“we know of cases where children as a result of Payne v Payne have been removed from one of their parents, their wider family, their school and their friends. It is our experience that the hard line taken in Payne v Payne has been followed, albeit with misgivings, by judges up and down the country. We see too many children separated from parents. If the consensus among judges is that, at best, Payne v Payne is out of date then this needs to be revisited as a matter or urgency. Even the judge who made that judgement thinks it is time to look at it again”. 

“We understand that,after separation,life has to move on but we know that there are cases in which the primary carer decided to move thousands of miles away with the explicit aim of making a relationship with the other parent impossible. Neither parent should have a veto on the life choices of the other, but it is our strong view that the court needsto investigate the real motives behind relocations and act to protect the best interests of the children and their right to meaningful relationships with both parents and their wider families.”

Michael Robinson of the Custody Minefield commented “LJ Thorpe talks of the need for uniformity and convention, and that is the problem. He misses that the criticism of his guidance in Payne v Payne does not centre on the Family Division of the Courts being out of step with other commonwealth courts (which it is), but on its continued failing to take into account a compelling and overwhelming body of child welfare related research which directly contradicts his guidance.”

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

Families Need Fathers (FNF) is greatly encouraged by the Government’s commitment to Shared Parenting and a review of family law. This has the potential to make a huge difference to separated families across Britain.

We are pleased with this bottom-line commitment to “encourage Shared Parenting from the earliest stages of pregnancy – including the promotion of a system of flexible parental leave;” however this is just the beginning. FNF looks forward to being involved in the debate to determine how best to encourage shared parenting and legal reform. The next essential step is a legal presumption of Shared Parenting.

“Time is ticking. Children are losing out on a loving relationship with their parents every hour and will continue to do so until these proposals have an actual effect.” Becky Jarvis, Policy Officer for FNF.

What do you think?

Send us feedback!