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
Monday 31 January 2005
Friday 21 January 2005
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
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
Thursday 20 January 2005
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.
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.
Monday 17 January 2005
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!!!
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!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)