NSPCC – correcting their misfacts!

Veteran Equal Parenting campaigner, Robert Whiston, has written to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) in an effort to correct misfacts broadcasted on several NSPCC television ads.

Whiston argues that the NSPCC has played a destructive role in preventing greater contact between children and their fathers.

CLICK HERE TO READ WHISTON'S LETTER & TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINION

Australian Bill pushes equal custody

Media coverage of Australian Family Law Reforms that promote EQUAL PARENTING.

These reforms are similar to those that we've been asking the UK Government to implement for years!

CLICK HERE TO READ IT

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THIS TOPIC ON EPC DISCUSSION FORUMS

Family Law Reforms - good progress in Australia

The new Australian Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005 was introduced into the Australian Parliament this morning, 8 December 2005.

Edward Dabrowski, Federal Director of Shared Parenting Council of Australia when commenting on the bill said:

"Today is a really big turning point in Family law in this country. Though the reforms are not perfect in all ways and the Bill will not be enacted until February 2006, we now have a good foundation stone on which to build.”

Click here to download the Bill and Explanatory Memorandum.

FOR EPC's SIMPLE SUMMARY OF THESE REFORMS & TO POST YOUR OWN COMMENTS
CLICK HERE

CAFCASS REFORMING ITSELF FOR BETTER?

EVERY DAY MATTERS - CAFCASS new approach?

Anthony Douglas, Chief Executive of CAFCASS, has outlined new directions for the organization. The major objectives are:

*to guarantee an intensive early intervention service;
*to extend dispute resolution work;
*to minimize reporting and maximise direct work with children and families.

The new plan highlights the need to triage every case, with an emphasis on shared parenting in cases where safety isn't an issue.

On the face of it, Douglas appears to be going substantially in the direction that EPC has been pushing for.

For more info and to post your own comments:
Click here

MAKE FAMILY COURTS OPEN TO PUBLIC?

The Guardian Newspaper's Legal Editor, Clare Dyer, has reported that the “curtain of secrecy hiding what goes on in the family courts of England and Wales is to be lifted”. In order to quell 'festering' doubts over the justice system Judges may let public and media into hearings.

Mr Justice Munby, a leading advocate of greater openness in the family courts, in a recent lecture made a strong plea for more transparency, suggesting that the current restrictions may even breach the European convention on human rights and concluding: "It really is time that something was done about all this."

A move to greater openness is supported by many senior judges.

For more info and to post your own comments:
CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THIS TOPIC ON EPC FORUMS

Kim Basinger a Parental Alienator?

Baldwin: Basinger turning kid against me

Kim Basinger and ex-husband Alec Baldwin are involved in a custody battle.

Alec Baldwin and ex-wife Kim Basinger traded personal jabs through their lawyers Monday, with each claiming that the other has serious emotional problems.

In court papers, Baldwin claimed Basinger "has a pathological need" to turn their daughter against him, and he is asking for a psychological evaluation of the actress.

Baldwin lawyer Vicki Greene argued in a court hearing Monday that Basinger had tainted 10-year-old Ireland's view of her father.

Basinger's attorney, Neal Hersh, dismissed the claim and said Baldwin was the problem.

"We believe that Mr. Baldwin has severe emotional problems," Hersh said. "Mr. Baldwin's lawyers attempted to cast terrible aspersions toward Kim rather than focusing on the main issue, which is his daughter."

Baldwin was not at the hearing, which discussed his telephone time with his daughter and whether Baldwin should get an extra weekend with her when a holiday is interrupted by a court-ordered custody hearing.

Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Maren Nelson said she found no reason to alter the custody agreement. She did not rule on the psychological evaluation request.

The acting duo married August 19, 1993. They separated in 2000 and divorced in 2002.

Basinger declined to comment outside the courtroom. She and Baldwin are scheduled to return to court December 13.

CLICK HERE TO DISCUSS THIS TOPIC ON THE EPC FORUMS

www.EqualParenting.org

Anthony Douglas dupes F4J!

In a just-released memo, F4J admit that they decided to suspend hostilities against CAFCASS in the expectation of receiving a document confirming assurances made by Douglas to F4J founder Matt O'Connor. Douglas and O'Connor have been having talks for some months. No such document ever materialized - surprise, surprise!

The F4J memo goes on to state:

"Matt has invested a huge amount of time and energy in these talks, and has risked his personal integrity and authority. I think it is clear that he has been given the run-around in order to keep us off CAFCASS' back."

EPC could have told Matt that CAFCASS never keeps its word!

More info:

CLICK HERE TO POST COMMENTS ON EPC FORUMS

CAFCASS BOARD PROTECTS BAD STAFF

Former CAFCASS Chair, Anthony Hewson OBE said that, in his opinion, CAFCASS's complaints procedure was designed to protect its staff from accountability, rather than to protect the consumer. Anthony resigned when his attempts to reform it were sabotaged.

The FAMILY X CASE, which EPC has been complaining to CAFCASS's Board about for years, demonstrates just how badly CAFCASS fails children and families. It shows that some people at the top of CAFCASS were not not fit to be in their jobs.

Finally CAFCASS has apologized for its failures in that case. But it has so far failed to hold anyone accountable. The fact is, CAFCASS's attitude in that case is typical. It was by no means a "one-off".

The new Chief Executive, Anthony Douglas, has indicated that he will reform the complaints procedure. EPC will be watching and hopes to be able to report positive progress.

Douglas has promised to come back to us soon on what CAFCASS intends to do about holding people accountable for their abject performance in the FAMILY X CASE.

CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT FAMILY X AND TO ADD YOUR OWN VIEWS

CAFCASS's CHIEF EXEC RESPONDS

STATEMENT FROM ANTHONY DOUGLAS FOLLOWING TIMES ARTICLE:

The views I expressed in the Times article were distorted by the headline, 'let 7 year olds choose.................'.

But I did say that children had a right to be consulted, and that it is impossible to arrive at a view about what is best for them without finding out how they're thinking or feeling.

That basic human right to be consulted will I think become more enshrined in case law in future years, as it is now for older children. However, stating that, which few would disagree with, is not the same as 'letting 7 year olds choose'. Unchecked freedom of choice for young children would clearly be absurd. Young children have conceptual limitations, change their minds, and are prone to influence. Well, I should say they're more conceptually limited, change their minds more and more prone to influence than adults!

Adults have some of these limitations too! For me, the key point is that children will have formed their attachments, strong or weak, to both their parents at a very young age. By 7 they're well down the road, and if communicated with properly, will discuss how they feel and what they want,

as underlying convictions for them, not anyone else.

What I was expressing was my view that our work in CAFCASS should be attachment-led. In other words, what matters is to promote and strengthen the attachment between a child and both her or his parents after a separation.

Children can grow up with multiple attachments and can cope with parallel parenting.

Assuming a child has decent attachments to both parents, both parents then need substantial parenting time over the years in order to maintain and build those attachments. If a child has no attachment, a disrupted attachment or a poor attachment to one parent, then from that child's point of view, the prospect of shared residence or substantial parenting time is less appealing. The issue then becomes whether substantial parenting time is right for the non-resident parent in those circumstances in order to repair a damaged attachment or to build it up from scratch in a different way. If it can be repaired, that is invariably best for a child and we need far stronger family support services to facilitate that.

From a fathers perspective, I believe that a focus on a child's attachments will demonstrate that shared residence approaches are usually best, and that where one parent excludes the other for good reason or bad, a focus on the child's separate relationships with each of his or her parents will show that even if one adult wants nothing more to do with the other, the child does want the relationship to continue. Our role is to support that and try to make it happen.

The family justice system does need to be more assertive on behalf of a child to make sure that is achieved. Equally in the far fewer cases where a child is petrified of one parent, it's irresponsible of us to pursue 'the presumption of contact' to such a length that we put a child in a situation of continuing harm of one sort or another.

I agree with the comments made by some FNF members that our staff need continuing core training in dispute resolution and communicating with children if this vision is to be achieved. We are reviewing our training strategy at the moment, and will let you have a copy of that when it is drafted in the usual way. I would point out that our dispute resolution services in different parts of the country are achieving very high success rates. Dispute resolution is our top priority.

Finally I want to say something about parental alienation syndrome.....

......If a parent coaches a child in this way, it clearly puts the child in an impossible position, with split loyalties that often become too uncomfortable to live with. In my view that is subjecting the child to long-term emotional harm. We have often recommended transfers of residence in these cases, although each case needs a careful assessment.

I do hope the matters raised can generate a healthy and productive debate.

CAFCASS is aiming to publish a new professional strategy in draft on 20 September, after it has been to the CAFCASS Board, with a 3 month consultation period to follow. We will set out our strategy on all these issues in that document, which will cover our work in public and private law cases. Your views matter to us.

Best wishes

Anthony Douglas

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE EPC FORUMS AND POST YOUR VIEWS ABOUT THIS STATEMENT

Did the President lie to Parliament? by Robert Whiston

STATEMENT FROM LEADING EQUAL PARENTING RESEARCHER, ROBERT WHISTON

Family Justice and Family Courts - discounting NAPO

Commenting on Harry Fletcher's response to the report published by the Constitutional Affairs Committee, we should bear in mind the accuracy of his figures (see NAPO press release below this statement).

Observers will recall that, during the course of the Inquiry, Keith Vaz MP asked Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss (the top family court judge) for her view on the perception that the family court system is biased against fathers. Dame Elizabeth replied "..... it is untrue for a number of reasons. First of all, the Children Act requires us to treat spouses equally and parents equally, and my experience is that we do. I must have found, like both my brethren, for fathers on many, many occasions ...."

["MINUTES OF EVIDENCE: Question 23 taken before Constitutional Affairs Committee Family Justice: The Operation of the Family Courts. (Tuesday 9 November 2004)"]

With regard her claim to have "found" for fathers "on many, many occasions", in actual fact, of the 50 cases that came before the High Court in 2004 (when approx. 140,000 were dealt with at County Court level) only 8 were found in favour of the father, 15 others were 'dismissed' and 8 more were 'struck out'(see Judicial Statistics, 2004, Table 1.16).

'Finding in favour of the father' does not mean that the father wins the custody dispute. The above inconsistencies were brought to the attention of the Clerk to the Constitutional Affairs Committee during the Inquiry.

Was Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss being economical with the truth when answering Keith Vaz's question? Was she knowingly committing perjury or are there other disproving statistics we are not able to access?

As for Harry Fletcher he is correct when he asserts that 'research shows that only 0.8% of fathers are actually refused contact'. But it is misleading to leave matters there. As the recent Lords debate once again revealed, over 40% of separated fathers, i.e. 70,000 fathers (and increasing), have no meaningful contact with their children.

Properly gathered statistics never lie - it is the damnable 'people with an agenda' who twist and manipulate them.

ROBERT WHISTON

Family Courts - Napo's Press Release of 2 March 05


PRESS STATEMENT

Family Justice and Family Courts

Commenting on today's report, published by the Constitutional Affairs Committee, Harry Fletcher, Assistant General Secretary of Napo, the Family Court Union, said:

"The finding that there is no systemic bias against fathers in court proceedings is most welcome. Research shows that only 0.8% of fathers are actually refused contact. Family disputes only get to Court where all other procedures have failed. The recommendation therefore for greater emphasis on mediation is surprising."

He added:

"Any steps to reduce delay would be very positive. Opening up the courts to greater public and media attention will improve confidence providing that the rights of children are always protected."

ends

For further information Harry Fletcher, Napo, 020 7223 4887

CAFCASS EXPECTS CHILDREN TO CHOOSE BETWEEN PARENTS

If anyone needed final confirmation that CAFCASS should be abolished, they would find it in today's Times – see below for the The Times articles.

CAFCASS’s Chief Executive, Anthony Douglas, told The Times that the children of divorce – even those as young as 7 - should decide which parent they want to be with.

So, there we have it - the organization that has the paramount, statutory duty to safeguard the welfare of the children, abdicates responsibility to children - at a time when they are upset and confused over what is happening to their precious family life.

CAFCASS staff are rank amateurs who have not been trained even in the fundamentals of this important work. They have been told they are experts in it, so they think they are! They are social workers and probation officers. They have the wrong training and the wrong leadership for this skilled, specialist work.

Take an average case that comes to the attention of EQUAL PARENTING COUNCIL (EPC). Usually such cases involve the children of two normal, loving parents. There is no question in these cases of either parent posing any kind of safety risk. However one parent, usually (but not always) the mother, is blocking the other
parent’s access. Left with no alternative, the blocked parent applies to court for an order.

Because our system is so appalling, this process takes months, often years. Meantime, the excluded parent will often be granted little or no access, and the blocking parent is given carte blanche to alienate the children.

This alienation process is well known to true experts, those who have been properly trained in resolving custody and access disputes for the long term benefit of the children.

Children are devastated when their parents separate, but it is made a thousand times worse for them when they lose contact with their other parent. Of course they shouldn’t be asked to choose between the two people they love more than anything else in the world! What an abusive, incompetent approach! Yet that is what CAFCASS officers do and that is why, in the UK, over 40% of parents lose all contact with their children within 2 years of separation.

Anthony Douglas’s own words betray the fact that CAFCASS is unfit to fulfil the role of serving the best interests of children. CAFCASS officers don’t have a clue and we now know that their wrongheaded approach comes from the misdirection they receive from the very top of the organization.

Children have the right to both parents, just as they have the right to an education and to good medical care. They should not be handed the right to opt out of seeing one of their parents when everyone agrees (and global research overwhelmingly proves) that this is damaging to their long term interests.

The Times concludes that Douglas’s approach is a step in the wrong direction. It is actually the way CAFCASS has always operated, in flagrant disregard of the civil rights of children and excluded parents. This is why EPC wholeheartedly supports all those who have been calling for the abolition of CAFCASS. Our private law system of family justice cannot improve until CAFCASS has gone.

EPC's solutions? Please read:

EPC's presentation "The Burning Need for a Legal Presumption of Parenting Time"

EPC's latest submission to Parliament

Post your views on the EPC FORUMS


ARTICLES IN THE TIMES ABOUT ANTHONY DOUGLAS, CHIEF EXEC OF CAFCASS

July 23, 2005


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,542-1704648,00.html

The mouths of babes
It would be unwise to ask children to choose between their parents

There are rarely true “winners” from any divorce but children are often the greatest losers. It is right that this fact and their interests are awarded a very high priority when arrangements for custody are determined. The precise weight offered to their preferences as to whom they might live with remains, however, a matter of controversy. This argument will be further stoked by the candid views put to The Times today by Anthony Douglas, the chief executive of the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service.

Mr Douglas believes that, with a number of exceptions, children from the age of 7 should have the primary voice in deciding their future. He has previously written that the judicial system should “listen to children first and last”. He contends that, on the whole, children have the insight and maturity to know what they want and that those insights should be respected by the courts. He has cited his own extremely difficult circumstances as a child — the adopted son of two parents where the father had come to “hate and detest” the mother — as an illustration in favour of his position.

Mr Douglas is an able public servant, passionate about his work and a staunch advocate for children. He recognises some of the challenges that a shift in the presumption of the law in this area might bring. He may, though, underestimate their impact. There are three powerful reasons against moving in the manner that he suggests.

The first concerns the age of the children he would empower. The level of maturity of those aged not merely 7, but up to the early teens, varies enormously. The difference is not just personality, but by gender and, for example, whether the child is the eldest, youngest or in the middle and the size of the family. Then there are the strengths or not of the broader family network. It would be an unwelcome step for the courts to assume that children at anywhere close to this age are the best judges of their own interests.

The second consideration is the damage that could be done to the already fragile relationship between separating parents. There is the danger of creating a competition for the affections of children that would be utterly destabilising. Parents might seek to shower their children with favours and treats or, worst still, poison them against the other partner. Divorce is bad enough without any extra conflict.

Finally, while it is clear that reform in this area is necessary, it has not been shown that the change required is that which Mr Douglas has suggested. The principal complaint made against the current system — and by sensible people and bodies, not merely aggrieved fathers dressed in silly costumes calling for “justice” — is that there remains a bias against awarding men the custody of children. Those children may also suffer as a consequence if denied proper contact with fathers..

Family law often lags behind social trends. In time more fathers will be awarded custody. Both the issues of access and alimony need to be policed more effectively. The change that Mr Douglas supports, nevertheless, would be a step in the wrong direction.


July 23, 2005

'Let 7-year-olds choose between their parents'
By Alexandra Frean, Social Affairs Correspondent


CHILDREN as young as 7 should be allowed to decide which parent they want to live with in cases of divorce or separation, Anthony Douglas, the head of the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service (Cafcass), has said.

The “wishes and needs” expressed by children, and not their parents, should be the starting point for settling residence and contact disputes, he said.

“Most children over the age of 7, 8 or 9, depending on their emotional development, will have a very clear view of what they want to happen. That view should stand unless there are safeguarding issues or some other overriding welfare issues.

“Children, when trusted and empowered, usually tell the truth. They will have thought about these issues very deeply. With their parents separating, they will be in a situation they don’t want to be in — they won’t have voted for it.

“They will tell you what they want to happen. That should be your starting point,” Mr Douglas told The Times.

Mr Douglas emphasised that, ideally, children should spend time with both parents, but should be allowed to decide who to live with most of the time.

He acknowledged that asking children was difficult, but said that the real test of whether parents wanted what was in their children’s best interests was whether they would allow their children to have a say.

Father’s groups reacted angrily to Mr Douglas’s comments, saying that they would be bound to favour mothers in disputed custody cases. Tony Coe, of the Equal Parenting Council, said that it was for parents to decide what was in children’s best interests. “Children should not be given the option to opt out of one parent any more than they are allowed to opt out of school or going to the dentist,” he said.

Matt O’Connor, a spokesman for Fathers4Justice, said that Mr Douglas’s approach represented a gross abdication of responsibility on the part of Cafcass, which was set up in 2001 to co-ordinate the representation of children’s interests before the courts. “It could leave children feeling very guilty if they felt they had been responsible for driving one parent or other from their lives,” he said.

Both organisations said that allowing children to decide would favour the parent with care at the time of the contact dispute, usually the mother, as there was a risk that she could poison the child’s mind against the absent parent, usually the father.

Jack O’Sullivan, of Fathers’ Direct, agreed with Mr Douglas that the views of the children should be paramount, but said that care needed to be taken to ensure that children did not feel that they had to take sides.

“It may be that a child says they want to be with one parent because they want to protect them. For example if daddy leaves and mummy is upset, the child might feel they need to stay with mummy to protect her,” he said.

Jim Parton, of Families Need Fathers, said that, although children should be listened to, those interviewing them needed to be very skilled to ensure that they did not ask leading questions. “With my son when he was asked, aged 5, ‘What do you consider to be your main home?

He said, ‘I have mummy’s house and daddy’s house’. The court welfare officer then asked him the question four more times and led him by the nose until he said, ‘mummy’s house’,” Mr Parton said.


READ ABOUT CAFCASS ON THE EPC WEBSITE

Children and Adoption Bill - Committee Stages

Following the second reading debate in the HOUSE OF LORDS on the 29th June we now have provisional dates for the Grand Committee stages when the House returns in October. They are:

Tuesday 11th October - day 1
Wednesday 12th October - day 2
Monday 17th October - day 3
Wednesday 19th October - day 4

CLICK HERE to access the second reading debate

After consulting EPC and other parenting organizations, the Opposition have tabled some amendments. More can be tabled up to two days ahead of when the clause in question will be debated. The clauses will be debated in the order in which they appear in the Bill.

CLICK HERE to access all amendments tabled on the parliamentary website.

EPC would very much like to hear feedback on the amendments, any suggestions for further amendments, and any general comments on second reading.

Please email feedback to tony.coe@EqualParenting.org

GOOD JUDGE - BAD SYSTEM

It is worth taking a look at the Court of Appeal's latest Judgment on costs orders in a contact dispute.

The Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Wall & Potter) upheld Judge Kushner QC's costs order against the respondent mother. The Judge had done a very thorough job of managing the case. She had ensured judicial continuity and took a firm grip over it.

However, when one reads the Judgment transcript, one is reminded of just how much scope there is in our rotten system for a resident parent to block, frustrate and erode the other parent's contact.

This father was extremely fortunate to have found such a good judge.

The case transcript can also be found on the EPC FORUMS where you can post your own comments about it.

JUDGE-MADE LAW IS BAD LAW

Clare Dyer, Legal Editor of The Guardian, writes in today's edition about the confused state of our laws regarding the finances of divorce.

On money issues also, it is left to the Judge to decide how the spoils are to be divided. Clear laws don't govern the outcome. The individual prejudices of judges decide the division of capital and assets. If the judge has a particular bias, that can have a huge difference on how the money will be divided.

The same applies to the apportionment of parenting time between parents. Whatever the judge says goes! Old-fashioned judicial thinking overwhelmingly favours awarding sole custody to one parent (so-called "residence")with the other parent (the so-called "contact parent") being relegated to the role of a visitor! The financial rulings then follow to support that regime.

EQUAL PARENTING COUNCIL believes that the starting point should be EQUALITY. The children's best interests are supposed to be the court's paramount consideration. Research overwhelmingly shows that children do best when they continue to have a full relationship with BOTH their parents - unless either parent is unfit. The Government says it supports that view.

Therefore, the judge's first priority should be to make sure that the children's parenting time with both parents is secured. The finances should then be apportioned (a) to underscore the parenting plan that has been agreed (or ordered) and (b) to serve the overriding yardstick of EQUALITY.

Treating both parents equally (excepting cases of parental unfitness)is what truly promotes the welfare of children. The Government is wrong to separate issues of children and finances. The two are inextricably linked.

CLEAR DIVORCE LAWS would ensure that everyone going into marriage would know the consequences should the marriage end. Such certainty and clarity would encourage early settlements. The biggest winners would be the children of divorce. The only losers would be lawyers - those that thrive on protracted disputes! Therein lies the rub!?

READ ALSO "AN INSIGHT INTO JUDICIAL THINKING" ON THE EPC FORUMS

AND TONY COE's PRESENTATION
"The Burning Need for a Legal Presumption of Parenting Time"

READ THE GUARDIAN ARTICLE

GOVERMNENT PILOT FLOPS!

GOVERNMENT'S FAMILY RESOLUTION PILOT FLOPS

The inevitable failure of this doomed project is reported today in The Guardian by its Legal Editor, Clare Dyer.

The project was supposed to remedy the problem of children losing contact with good, loving parents in cases where the custodial parent is determined to block the other parent’s access for no good reason.

EQUAL PARENTING COUNCIL (EPC)has been researching Best Practice family justice models across North America for years. EPC predicted that this half-baked scheme would fail. The Government refused to listen and, as a result, has poured copious amounts of taxpayers’ money down the drain! More importantly, children have been badly let down, as have their excluded parents and grandparents.

THE MISSING COMPONENTS – it’s a matter of commonsense!

The current law lacks a legal presumption that all fit* parents shall have the right to substantial parenting time (so called “contact”) with their children following separation from the other parent.

(*A parents should be deemed “fit” unless a condition exists that would justify the limitation of that parent’s role by the State even if the parents were still together in an intact relationship. EPC, for the sake of clarity, calls fit parent cases “normal cases” – which represent the vast majority.)

Substantial parenting time should be defined as at least one third of the available parenting time on a year round basis.

Courts should be required to secure children’s parenting time in all normal cases by the granting of substantial parenting time orders that must be enforced. However, early intervention measures are necessary to help parents reach agreement without the need for a damaging and costly trial. The two primary measures that have been found to be especially successful are:-


· Compulsory parent education; followed by

· Mandatory mediation

READ CLARE DYER’S ARTICLE


READ ALSO TONY COE'S WESTMINSTER PRESENTATION
"The Burning Need for a Legal Presumption of Parenting Time"

CAVING-IN TO CAFCASS

Fathers4Justice (Matt O'Connor) and Families Need Fathers (John Baker)have both issued statements welcoming CAFCASS's STATEMENT when it amounts to no more than platitudes that we've heard before.

Did Matt decide to shut down his F4J operation? But did he first want to find a way of going out with the benefit of something that looked like an achievement?

No other explanation makes sense to EPC.

This statement is what F4J members were risking their lives and liberty for, while they scaled tall cranes and breached security at Buckingham Palace and the House of Commons!?

Click here to read Daily Mail story on Matt O'Connor that appeared on 28th June'2005

BATMAN SELLS OUT TO CAFCASS ON BBC TV

No wonder F4J members are furious with Matt O'Connor. I'm not surprised that a breakaway group is forming what they are calling The Real FATHERS 4 JUSTICE!

BBC TV BREAKFAST NEWS this morning ran a Pollyanna piece labelled "Peace in our Time". It trumpeted the "breakthrough deal" struck between Matt and CAFCASS's smooth-talking Chief Executive, Anthony Douglas. This was said to be as a result of Matt agreeing to suspend direct action against CAFCASS. Apparently, CAFCASS will release a statement tomorrow that promises to represent "a quantum leap" in their thinking!

When Anthony Douglas was asked by the BBC presenter.......What changes will dads notice in CAFCASS's approach?.....Douglas could not come up with one single change! Douglas went on to say how well-trained, experienced and skilled CAFCASS staff are!

So what does Matt think he's achieved?

I was due to go on the programme to express EPC's views. When Douglas was booked, my appearance was cancelled. The programme made a last-mintute decision to make this a purely good news/feel-good piece. We have descended into Disneyland journalism - to hell with the truth; to hell with children and families; let's make people feel good!

There will not be one iota of change in the way CAFCASS approaches cases. They will continue to abuse children, parents and grandparents, by discriminating against non-custodial dads and mums. You can take that to the bank!

Anthony Douglas was so boyed-up by his success in duping Matt O'Connor that he emailed me last night seeking "dialogue" with EPC, provided we cease naming and shaming CAFCASS staff on our web site. Images of snowballs in hell spring to mind!

EPC will cease naming and shaming when we see concrete evidence that CAFCASS is putting its house in order. The CAFCASS Board and Anthony Douglas fail to hold staff accountable for bad practice and gross negligence. There is no effective remedy for the victims of such practices. In these circumstances, sadly, naming and shaming is our only remaining option.

Tony Coe, President EQUAL PARENTING COUNCIL

FATHERS4JUSTICE IMPLODES!

According to press reports, Fathers4Justice (the organization that lobs condoms in Parliament) is going through serious turmoil. A break-away group of members is forming "The Real Fathers4Justice". They say that F4J founder, Matt O'Connor, has gone soft because he suspended direct action against CAFCASS in favour of talks with its Chief Executive, Anthony Douglas.

According to an article in yesterday's Guardian (Batman and Robin quit protest group) Mr O'Connor is expecting CAFCASS to issue an imminent statement in support of shared residence (i.e. joint custody).

The leadership of CAFCASS has been sending these placatory signals for years. Former Chairman, Anthony Hewson OBE, publicly declared that shared residence should be the norm shortly after he was appointed back in 2001. In the end, Hewson had to resign because he found it impossible to implement change. CAFCASS staff on the ground would not (and will not) change their ways; no matter how hard management tries to bring their practices and thinking up to date. This is why Shadow Minister for the Family, Theresa May, is demanding the abolition of CAFCASS.

CAFCASS may issue statements of good intentions, but when it comes to real cases they can't and won't deliver. Look at CAFCASS's conduct in the case of FAMILY "X" which is showcased on our website. Mr O'Connor should look at the broken promises from Mr Douglas and then ask himself if Douglas can be trusted.

I say, "Matt, don't hang up your Batman costume just yet!"

CAFCASS BEYOND REDEMPTION

EPC has long argued that CAFCASS must be scrapped. The bias in the organization goes from top to bottom.

Well meaning people have tried to reform it. Former Chairman, Anthony Hewson OBE, tried hard. He told us frankly that many CAFCASS officers considered themselves to be child welfare experts and they refused to be budged in their thinking. Anthony quit when he realized that CAFCASS staff were sabotaging his attempts to address the reasonable complaints from organizations like EQUAL PARENTING COUNCIL.

The predominant thinking in CAFCASS is that shared parenting (if contested by the resident parent) cannot work. The predominant thinking is also that Parental Alienation doesn't exist; or, if it does, and the children are alienated, that's just tough on the alienated parent!

A parent rang and told us today that, in spite of the intervention of CAFCASS's new Chief Executive, Anthony Douglas, in relation to an Officer who was displaying manifest bias towards the father, the Officer refused to change her recommendation from sole residence to the mother, to a neutral one of shared residence.

The judge lauded the Officer for taking this stand, so one can see how this institutionalized bias is perpetuated! The law needs changing and CAFCASS must be abolished, as the Opposition Party have pledged to do!

To see how biased our family justice system is review the time line of a typical case by CLICKING HERE

CHILDREN'S VIEWS TRUMP WELFARE CONSIDERATIONS

Mabon v Mabon and Others
CA
26 May 2005
Daily Law Notes Report Summary
R 9.2A of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991, as amended, was
sufficiently widely framed to meet the United Kingdom's
obligations to comply with art 12 of the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child and art 8 of the European Convention on Human
Rights. Given the growing acknowledgment of the autonomy and
consequential rights of children the courts were obliged, in the
case of articulate teenagers, to accept that the right to freedom
of expression and participation outweighed the paternalistic
judgment of welfare.

EPC COMMENT: does this mean that "articulate teenagers" have the right to decide what is best for them in terms of their parenting? If their wishes conflict with their welfare, which should prevail? The law puts the children's welfare as paramount. How can the child's right to "freedom of expression" outweigh the paramountcy principle? This is yet another example of the judiciary making law, which is unacceptable. It is for Parliament to shape our laws. The judiciary's job is to apply them.

Rabbi Shochet's Article

Lisa Cohen of JUMP and the COALITION FOR EQUAL PARENTING asked that we draw parents’ attention to a recent article by Rabbi Shochet in the Jewish Chronicle. It supports the position of non-resident parents and it shows that religious and spiritual members of our community are beginning to wake up to the issue.

Lisa says, “We know this is not a gender, religious or ethnic problem - we are parents together and must unite to resolve the ongoing problems both from a judicial and social perspective.”

EPC - LATEST SUBMISSION TO PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

January 05 has been an extremely busy month at EPC!

Apart from numerous routine projects, we had the major task of completing our supplementary submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry into the family courts.
CLICK HERE TO READ IT

I was extremely pleased with the assitance that we got from key players in our North American network - especially (to name only a few of our closest friends) David Levy, leader of the Children's Rights Council, Judge John Lenderman and Kat Cooper of the Arizona court service. Each of them wrote letters to the Committee in support of shared parenting. These are wonderful, selfless people who are motivated by their desire to improve outcomes for children.

The work we are doing is costly to fund. EPC relies ENTIRELY on donations from Equal Parenters. Please use the MAKE A DONATION panel opposite this post to give whatever you can to support our important work.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT

RADIO 2 JEREMY VINE PROGRAMME TODAY

Margaret Hodge and Theresa May were interviewed today by Jeremy Vine. This was followed by a discussion with Philippa Pearson a lawyer with Family Law in Partnership.

Margaret still doesn't get it. She is still harping on about parents not being able to agree. She fails to grasp the fact that it takes only one parent being unreasonable to prevent reasonable contact. In effect, the de facto custodial parent has a vetoe over the granting of a timely contact order. Hodge says she wants the system to intervene earlier, but makes clear that this relates to ENFORCEMENT. This misses the point that fit nonresident parents can't get orders in the first place because of the no order principle.

Jeremy Vine made the point that in 93% of cases sole custody is awarded to the mother who is effectively given total control over the father's contact arrangements. Margaret made plain that she thought it was perfectly natural that sole custody should go to the mother. She suggested that Jeremy (and people generally) would probably agree that should happen! Jeremy told Hodge that her thinking was old fashioned. Margaret Hodge conceded that "ideas are changing"!

Margaret seems to have forgotten that Parliament's expectation was that, following introduction of the Children Act 1989, shared residence (i.e. joint custody) would be the normal order. That is to say, the children would live part of the time with one parent and part of the time with the other. It did not envisage one parent being confined to a contact centre or relegated to a McDonald's Dad!

Hodge Bodge then went on to say that enforcement measures would include CAFCASS checking to see that orders were being complied with. This again misses the point about how difficult it is to get an order in the first place; and she forgets that orders are often for paltry and/or unnatural contact (e.g 2 hours a week in a contact centre when the contact parent is perfectly fit).

Theresa May said the system needs much more radical reform - specfically

• LEGAL PRESUMPTION OF CO-PARENTING
• COMPULSORY MEDIATION

Theresa did well, but I do wish she would define what she means by "co-parenting"! I prefer the term "shared parenting" which is defined as frequent, continuing, substantial contact with BOTH parents. (Substantial means not less than one third of the parenting time on a year-round basis.)

She explained that the system must be re-constructed so that neither parent can use their children as a weapon against the other. Mediation has to be compulsory. Both parents need to be required to attend.

Philippa Pearson, the lawyer, started off OK. She said "the system doesn't work", "the law needs changing", "courts are useless". Then later in the discussion she totally contradicted herself, saying she wasn't sure that the law did need changing! She said that mothers are better in the witness box; hence they get custody.

Then she got totally lost in the weeds, talking about dads who voluntarily avoided contact. This is a total red herring. There are plenty of bad parents (male and female) who are still together. We need to confine ourselves to the parents who DO want to see their children, but are being excluded for no good reason!

Philippa said that Theresa May's reference to "co-parenting" was "flannel"!

DISCUSS THIS BLOG ON THE EPC FORUMS click here

PRAISE FOR EPC's STAND THIS WEEK

EPC has received a great deal of praise this week for our stand over the Government's toothless proposals for improving the family court system. Our media team put out a press release which can be found in EPC site's NEWS section at: http://www.equalparenting.org/news.htm

It has been wonderful receiving words of support from MPs (including Labour MPs) for our common-sense position and clear proposals for installing a new system that works for children. Family judges and pracitioners have also been supportive.

Earlier this week EPC met with leading mediators who also strongly support our approach. We are helping them develop parent education programmes that improve the effectiveness of mediation in difficult cases.

It is gratifying to know that good people are striving to improve outcomes for children while Lord Falconer and Margaret Hodge re-arrange deckchairs on the Titanic, instead of reparing the gaping hole in her side!

I'm not sure about Charlie Falconer. I suspect that he's a bit like the former Chairman of CAFCASS, Anthony Hewson. I formed a good relationship with Anthony, whose heart was in the right place. But he never really understood (until it was too late) just how corrupt our family justice system was (and is)!

Certainly Charlie Falconer seems much more down to earth than his impossibly arrogant and aloof predecessor, Lord Irvine of Lairg. Falconer probably wants to go much further with the reforms, just as I believe Lord Filkin wanted to do based on my couple of meetings with him. But Margaret Hodge and her cronies present too big an obstacle to effective change. Notice how Lord Filkin disappeared out of the picture as soon as it became clear that his line did not accord with Hodge's.

Media friends tell me that Falconer did not perform well at the press conference last Tuesday when these proposals were announced. Faced with a question about the daft electronic tagging idea, he was already backing-off big time!

At the end of the day, these proposals are an embarrassment to the Government. They were a cynical attempt to buy-off public hostility in the run-up to a General Election.

Phones have been ringing off the hooks at EPC headquarters today. Government has leaked to the media their intention to announce the reforms they intend to introduce following the infamous Green Paper.

The media have commented to EPC that it is odd the way the Government have approached this announcement in such a cloak and dagger way! It is also strange that they chose to make this announcement while the Select Committee into the Family Courts is still part-way through its Inquiry! I don't think that is likely to go down well with the Committee's members!!!

Anyway, tomorrow promises to be a very busy day judging by the volume of media calls!

TUESDAY 18 JAN 05 - THE ANNOUNCEMENT

THE PROPOSALS:

They are sticking to a system that only works for people who don't need the family courts - that is to say parents who can agree their own parenting plan for their children! There is nothing in the proposals that will work for the hardcore cases, where the custodial parent is hellbent on excluding the other parent from their children's lives.

There are two main themes - more mediation and more enforcement measures.

EPC is in favour of mediation, but it won't work for hardcore cases until there is a legal presumption of shared parenting enshrined in statute. This means that all fit parents would have the right to substantial parenting time (meaning not less than one third on a year-round basis). Judges would have to make a Parenting Time Order on that basis at the first hearing. If they depart from the presumption, they would have to set out their reasons in writing. Once we have the Legal Presumption, we then need mediation that:

*starts with an education component
*is mandatory
*with a timetable strictly controlled by the court

While the mediation is going on, the ordered parenting time schedule must be enforced.

EPC cannot see the enlarged enforcement measures making any practical difference. Judges already have extensive powers. They just don't use them (a) at all or (b) soon enough. Also the Government misses the point that many parents can't get an order (or a worthwhile order) in the first place! They are therefore putting the cart before the horse!

Parenting time (so inadequately called "contact") needs to be ordered early and enforced early so that the child-parent relationship is given the oxygen it needs to survive the parental separation.

These proposals have not been thought out and they are toothless.

These are the points that EPC has been banging home in the media today. Wow, it has been an exhausting day!!!