Press Releases

OFSTED SHOULD INCLUDE THE EFFORT SCHOOLS MAKE TO INVOLVE FATHERS IN ITS INSPECTION REPORTS  

Craig Whittaker MP chaired a roundtable discussion on Tuesday, 10^th May 2011 in Portcullis House at which representatives from the public sector, Ofsted and charities raised the issue of the exclusion of fathers from children’s education. 

Organized jointly by Families Need Fathers and the Fatherhood Institute, the meeting discussed the latest research evidence on the benefits of an involved father in children’s education, the barriers currently preventing schools from engaging with fathers effectively, and strategies to promote stronger partnerships between schools and fathers. 

Adrienne Burgess, Head of Research at the Fatherhood Institute, presented compelling research findings that the children of fathers who play an active role in their education are likely to attain higher academic qualifications, be better behaved and report greater enjoyment of school than those with unengaged fathers, even controlling for income, social class, and parents’ educational background. 

However, schools regularly fail to include fathers in their children’s education. It is a particular issue for separated fathers who often struggle even to obtain their children’s school reports or find out about parents’ nights and school events. Schools often assume without reason that fathers do not want to play an active role in their children’s education, and rarely address them directly. This is despite evidence that 70% of fathers who live with their children, and 81% of those who do not, want to be more involved in their children’s education. 

Craig Whittaker MP said, “The best solution of course is always the participation of both parents in a child’s education. However there is compelling evidence which shows the attainment levels of children dramatically increases when fathers are involved through school and at home. Sadly schools don’t recognize this and often inadvertently exclude fathers because of the way in which most communication is geared towards the mother. A very simple way of changing this mindset would be by changing the language everybody seems to use. Instead of ‘Parents and Carers’ why can’t we talk about ‘Mothers, Fathers and Carers’ This very simple change, particularly in Ofsted reports, would facilitate Head Teachers and their Management teams to reassess how they simply communicate and involve Fathers.”

Alex Borchardt said, “Families Need Fathers believes that Ofsted can play a crucial role in this process, and that ‘parental engagement’ should consider both mothers and fathers respectively. What is clear is that if we do not take action to address these issues, many children will continue to be denied the benefits of a father’s involvement in the education process.”

ENDS 

For comment, case studies or information please contact:

Ross Jones, Acting Director of Policy and Research 020 7613 5060

Alex Borchardt, Acting CEO 07920 131 778

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

Charlie Elphicke MP is presenting, today, a Ten Minute Rule Bill on shared parenting. He has been an MP for less than a year and is already inundated with correspondence from constituents desperate to have a relationship with their children after divorce and separation.

His Bill recognises that children should have a right to both parents playing a significant role in their upbringing after separation and divorce. Mr Elphicke is a father of two and understands how important both parents are to the wellbeing of children. There is abundant evidence that a child's chances in life are greatly improved if both parents continue that involvement. The children 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.

Elphicke said “The letters all tell the same story; that the family law system is failing children and parents alike. There is growing consensus that a presumption of shared parenting is necessary, in the House and throughout society in general. I hope that this Bill will go some way towards highlighting the issue.”

Craig Pickering, CEO of FNF said “I am very glad that Charlie is contributing to this debate. The Government’s review of family justice will affect children and parents for decades to come.” 

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

Can Skype be a substitute for a meaningful, loving relationship between a child and a parent? This is the absurd question being asked after The President of the Family Courts, in a Supreme Court ruling, maintained that a child could be removed to Australia by their mother and their relationship with their father could be maintained satisfactorily via Skype, despite the father’s appeal that the move would destroy the children’s life with their paternal family.

Last year Sir Nicholas Wall indicated that there was a case for law in this area to be reviewed; however in this judgment Sir Nicholas appears to have made a U-turn. A compelling body of research exists, published by leading academics, psychologists and educationalists, highlighting a risk of harm to children when separated from one parent. This research is routinely ignored by the courts.

Sir Nicholas went on to state the courts will continue to follow guidance first set in the 1970s, despite this guidance being directly challenged by contemporary research.

Craig Pickering, Chief Executive of Families Need Fathers said “despite much criticism by charities, MPs and leading members of the legal profession, the Lord Justice of Appeal refuse to recognise children's needs and rights in relocation cases, and expose children to known harm. A loving and full relationship cannot be maintained via Skype. No parent can carry out their parental responsibilities simply via this technology. ”

In an event at the House of Commons in November 2010, organised by Families Need Fathers, Ann Thomas, Managing Partner of the International Family Law Group, said "How can we, in the English legal profession, have gone so wrong, have failed so many children, have inadvertently engaged in gender discrimination for almost two generations....”

Families Need Fathers disputes Sir Nicholas’s assertion in this recent judgment that relocation cases are determined on facts. Michael Robinson who heads the Relocation Campaign said “The assumptions which underpin judicial reasoning in these cases have not once been supported by expert findings in over 40 years.  The court decides the outcome in relocations based on a 1970’s view of family life which has no relevance two generations later. Most concerning is the court’s refusal to consider expert evidence which contradicts its flawed and out-of-date reasoning. If the courts accept the expert research findings, they must also accept they have subjected thousands of British children to harm”.

Despite assurances that the Family Justice Review would consider the 15 academic research studies which highlight a risk of psychological, educational and emotional harm from relocation, the Review’s interim report published last week made no mention of this much criticised area of family law.

Notes to Editors;

More information is available from the following links:

The published judgement: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/345.html

http://www.thecustodyminefield.com/factsheets/relocationcampaignnews.com

http://www.thecustodyminefield.com/Reports/FamilyLaw-Relocation_The_Need_For_Reform.pdf

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

More and more parents share the care of their children after separation and divorce, an arrangement which is ignored and belittled by the 2011 Census. This is not only insulting and neglectful, but it may skew the provision of services available to separated parents and their children. It could also inaccurately represent the number of children living in the UK.

Separated families are instructed to include their child only on the questionnaire of the parent with whom they spend the majority of their time, and to be included as a ‘visitor’ at the other parent’s address if they are staying overnight there on 27th March 2011. Parents who divide parenting arrangements equally following separation are instructed to include the child only at the address where they are staying overnight on 27th March 2011.

It is insulting to ask parents of children who stay in their home for a significant part of the year not to acknowledge their children’s existence, or label them merely as ‘visitors’. The insensitive handling of these parents in the Census merely propagates a harmful and outdated ‘winner takes all’ view of parenting arrangements.

Becky Jarvis, Director of Policy, said, “The 2011 Census neglects the significant minority (11%, according to recent research (1)) of separated couples who adopt shared parenting arrangements, dividing care for their children more or less equally. Shared parenting has rapidly grown in popularity over the past 15 years, as academic research and public attitudes alike have increasingly recognised the importance for children of both parents taking an active and meaningful role in their care wherever appropriate. The disregard of separated couples with children by the Census, regardless of the nature of parenting arrangements, bears little resemblance to the complexity of trends clear to those with even a passing interest in families”.

John, a father from Banstead, said, “When the Census hit my doorstep, I was desperately searching for the box that related to my family’s living arrangement. I was bemused and bewildered that shared parenting was not recognised.  My kids live with me half of the time. I rang the helpline, who said that I should say that they live me with if they are staying on the 27th March. I was appalled!”

The mission statement of the Census is to provide “a detailed snapshot of the population and its characteristics”, in order to identify their needs. By failing to take account of parenting arrangements, it is difficult to see what critical utility the Census will be able to provide in the provision of services for these parents and children.

Due to confusion, and indeed principle, a proportion of parents who share the care of the children are both likely to state that their children live with them. Considering the number of children who experience divorce and separation, this could have disastrous consequences for the accuracy of the Census data on families.

(1) Problematic Contact After Separation and Divorce? A National Survey of Parents, Peacey, V. and Hunt, J., London, One Parent Families/Gingerbread, p19., 2008. See also I'm Not Saying It Was Easy. Peacey, V. and Hunt, J., London, One Parent Families/Gingerbread, 2009

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

The Family Justice Review Panel recommends enhancing “the regard given to the status of shared parental responsibility” and introducing a statement into the Children Act 1989, reinforcing the importance of the child continuing to have a meaningful relationship with both parents.

Craig Pickering, CEO of Families Need Fathers, said, “The report contains a lot of good ideas, for example on judicial continuity and fast-tracking at least some cases. If it had gone further – especially on a presumption of shared parenting (not the same as a 50/50 split of time spent with each parent) – we would have a family law system that genuinely encourages both parents to play a significant role in their child’s life following separation or divorce.”

We are a long way off understanding how these proposals, if implemented, would work in practice and whether they would achieve an environment where post separation parenting is shared. For example, this week it has been reported that a significant relationship with a father could be maintained over thousands of miles via Skype. Enshrining a presumption of shared parenting in UK law would be a more certain way to achieve the aim of the reforms proposed by the Review Panel.

The proposals rightly focus on changing the culture in favour of shared parenting, by:

·         Removing the concepts of ‘contact’ and ‘residence’, which do not relate to the realities of parenting. This is a huge step forward, but an explicit presumption that shows, as is usually the case, that both parents must be significantly involved in a child’s life wherever appropriate, would be a much better guide to the courts on what the best interests of the child really are. In legal terms, it would flesh out, without compromising, the paramountcy principle.

·         Strengthening judicial continuity, to prevent, for example, 10 judges dealing with one case.  However, we question why it is just in complex cases that judicial continuity is necessary, as we strongly believe it is needed across the board.

·         Helping separating parents to work out their arrangements in the best interests of the child, for example through an online information hub.

·         Giving more weight to parenting agreements.

·         Offering swift action when a court order is breached, so that judgments can be enforced in a way that keeps a child in touch both parents.

·         Information and rapidly-acting dispute resolution promoting shared parenting.

The proposals will need further debate, and leave some unanswered questions, for example how Cafcass will operate within a new Family Justice Service. But on the face of it they are a step forward to promoting shared parenting, even if not a big enough one

What do you think?

Send us feedback!