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
