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
Thursday 30 June 2005
Monday 27 June 2005
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"
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"
Wednesday 15 June 2005
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
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
Monday 13 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
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
Friday 10 June 2005
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!"
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!"
Wednesday 8 June 2005
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
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
Thursday 2 June 2005
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.
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.
Wednesday 1 June 2005
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.”
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.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)