3rd of Welsh Kids lose contact with a parent, report says

Of course, Equal Parenters well know that this phenomenon is not peculiar to Wales!!!


Up to a third of Welsh divorce kids lose touch with a parent

Aug 2 2006

Darren Devine, Western Mail


UP to a third of children from broken families in Wales lose touch with one of their parents, a new report has revealed.
The findings suggest children are, in some cases, falling victim to the politics of the extended family - disputes between adults when one or both of the separated parents becomes involved with a new partner.
Up to 57% of the Welsh parents surveyed go on to form another family group, compared to the national average of 47%.
Assistant Children's Commissioner for Wales Sara Reid said in some cases, such as where the mother has been a victim of domestic violence, it is in the interests of the child to end contact.
Ms Reid said, "Children have a right to a relationship with both parents and in most cases there are really positive benefits from that.


"The difficulty is that often when a relationship has broken down there maybe particular circumstances, such as if there has been domestic violence, where it's not in the best interests of the child to have that relationship.
"It's sad that contact is lost and it often happens very gradually over a period of time."
But head of Fathers 4 Justice Wales Phil Davies
said fathers are awarded residency in less than 1% of cases where parents split and it is invariably men who then lose contact with their children.
He said, "Usually it's because the mother wants to play happy families with the new partner.
"Sometimes the mother will move around three or four times so the father cannot have contact. We're dealing with one case at the moment where the mother moved from Bedford in the South East to Swansea, to get away from the father."
Child psychologist Dr Pat Spungin, founder of Raisingkids.co.uk which conducted the research, said children find it easier to accept half-siblings than step-siblings when their parents begin new relationships.
But Dr Spungin said blended families are fraught with problems because of the difficulties in trying to find common ground between two separate and established sets of household rules.
She said, "Trying to merge two sets of rules under the one roof is one of the most problematic and stressful situations that children - and indeed their parents - can go through."
But the psychologist said relationships between children and their step-parents often changed after the arrival of grand-children.
She said, "Grandchildren can help re-connect the original parent and child relationship - and with a step-parent involved this can result in quite significant change.
"Someone previously only known to the family as Carol or John can suddenly come to be referred to as Granny or Grandad, and with it they are essentially embraced further into the family, because of their new grandparent status."
Children in Wales fatherhood development officer Tony Ivens said when a child loses contact with its father it also becomes cut off from one side of its extended family.
"Along with the child losing contact with the non-resident parent, who is normally the father, they lose contact with their extended family on that side. It doesn't just mean disruption for the father, but for the set of grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins on that side of the family."


www.EqualParenting.org

Pelling - legal victory on publicity

Dr M J Pelling - Litigant in Person
Ms Veronica N. Bruce-Williams – Respondent (did not appear and was not represented)
Hearing date : 14th July 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
Lord Justice Wall :
1. This unusual application reaches me as a consequence of a direction by Brooke LJ sitting alone on 9 May 2006. Brooke LJ directed that an application by Dr Michael Pelling to discharge, alternatively to set aside, an injunction made by this court on 20 June 1996, should be listed before a Lord Justice of Appeal who specialises in Family Law matters. The court had previously refused to issue the application, as I understand it, on the ground that Thorpe LJ had taken the view, when the matter was referred to him on paper, that the injunction was spent. Dr Pelling unsuccessfully sought to challenge that refusal in proceedings for judicial review, but succeeded before Brooke LJ on a different basis, namely that, pursuant to CPR 52.16(5) a party "may request any decision of a court officer to be reviewed by the Court of Appeal".

2. In his application notice, Dr. Pelling argued that this court itself had rendered the injunction nugatory by its public judgment of 1 July 2004 in the case of Pelling v Bruce-Williams [2004] 3 FCR 108, which had named the minor and the parties. He also complained that the injunction was made in breach of natural justice, as this court in 1996 had refused to hear him.

3. The circumstances in which the order complained of came to be made were as follows. On 20 June 1996, this court (Butler-Sloss, Peter Gibson and Thorpe LJJ) dismissed an appeal by Dr. Pelling and Mr. Bernard Greenwood from an order of His Honour Judge Goldstein dated 14 March 1996. The latter had refused applications by Dr. Pelling and Mr. Greenwood (who had intervened in Dr Pelling's proceeding on the question of a public hearing) that Dr Pelling's application for residence under the Children Act 1989 be heard in open court. This court's decision was subsequently reported as Re PB (Hearings in Open Court) [1996] 2 FLR 765.

4. In addition to dismissing the appeal, however, this court also made an order in the following terms: -

5. No one shall publish or reveal to anyone (other than the parties to this appeal or the Official Solicitor) the name or address of the minor child who is the subject of these proceedings or publish or reveal any particulars or other information which would be likely to lead to the identification of the said minor.

6. As I have already stated, Dr. Pelling's application to me on 14 July 2006, was for this injunction to be "discharged or set aside". I made it clear at the outset of the hearing that I was prepared to discharge the injunction. Dr. Pelling, however, despite having sought relief in the alternative, wanted the injunction set aside. He argued that it should never have been made. Discharging it, he argued, would imply that it had been properly made, and had remained properly in force.

7. As I had, perhaps unwisely, been expecting Dr. Pelling to take "yes" for an answer, I was unprepared for this submission, and given the pressure on the list on 14 July 2006, I decided to take a little time to consider the matter. This I have now done.

8. Dr. Pelling's dissatisfaction with the order against identification made on 20 June 1996 is multi-faceted. He objects to it, of course, per se. However, his two more focused objections are (1) its terms; and (2) the fact that he was not heard by the court before the order was made. Butler-Sloss LJ (as she then was), basing herself on the case of Re Z (A Minor) (Freedom of Publication) [1996] 1 FLR 191 (Re Z), gave a short ex tempore judgment in which she made it clear that it was the practice of this court to impose a direction against the identification of children involved in proceedings between their parents under the Children Act 1989. This was because such orders were in the best interests of children, and because the welfare of the children concerned prevailed over any parental rights based on freedom of expression.

9. On 20 June 1996, Dr Pelling had come to court armed with a number of authorities, which this court declined to consider. Indeed, when Dr. Pelling asked: "Are you refusing to hear me?" Butler-Sloss LJ replied, with the directness and clarity for which she was well known: "Yes, in fact we are". However, as stated in paragraph 8 above, she went on to explain why. When Dr. Pelling pointed out that the summons had still to be heard, and when he attempted to refer to the case of Mrs. R v Central Independent Television [1994] Fam 192, Butler-Sloss LJ interrupted him to say that it was not appropriate "on this direction at this stage to hear argument".

10. This court refused Dr Pelling permission to appeal to the House of Lords, but as we know, he took the open court / chambers point to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, where the practice in England and Wales of hearing children's cases in private was upheld by that court: - see B v United Kingdom, P v United Kingdom [2001] 2 FLR 261.

11. Dr. Pelling's continued efforts have, however, borne some fruit. As a consequence of the decision of this court in Pelling v. Bruce-Williams (supra), the practice of the court has changed. Anonymity directions are no longer automatic in children's cases: indeed, anonymity has to be (a) sought; and (b) justified. It was no doubt as a consequence of the judgment of this court in that case (Thorpe, Sedley and Arden LJJ) that Thorpe LJ was of the opinion, when the matter was referred to him on paper, that the order complained of by Dr. Pelling and made on 20 June 1996 had been discharged.

12. Whether or not that is so, the recent decision of this court in Clayton v Clayton [2006] 2 FCR 405, makes it clear that the prohibition against publication contained in section 97(2) of the Children Act 1989 lasts only as long as the proceedings themselves. Dr. Pelling's litigation over his son, who will be 16 later this year, is long since over, and it is, therefore, plainly the case that he is entitled to have the injunction discharged. I am not, however, prepared to set it aside, for the reasons which follow.

13. It is clear, for the reasons I have already given, that an order such as that made by this court on 20 June 1996 would not be made today without full argument. However, in this court in 1996, orders restricting publication of the names of children were the norm. There was, accordingly, nothing unusual in this court making an order against publicity in a case involving a child, particularly where it was one parent's specific wish for the proceedings to be in open court.

14. Dr Pelling criticises Butler-Sloss LJ's reliance on Re Z. He says that this was certainly not a Re Z case in which welfare was paramount, and arguably was not even a Re Z case in which welfare fell to be balanced against freedom of speech. I am not so sure about that. But even if Butler-Sloss LJ was eliding the Re Z type of case with what was then the conventional direction against identification, the fact of the matter is that the court would have made an order against publicity in any event. Dr Pelling had made it clear that he wanted the case heard in open court, and, somewhat unwisely, he appears to have told the court that he did not intend to obey the non-identification order. Accordingly, even if he had been allowed to cite substantial authority to the court, the result, I am confident, would have been the same.

15. Dr Pelling also attacks the wording of the order. He says it is far too wide. The very limit of the court's jurisdiction, he says, would have been to make an order restricting the identification of the child as the child who was the subject of the proceedings. As the order was drafted, Dr Pelling argued, he would have been in contempt of court if, in his son's company, he met a friend in the street and introduced the child by name to that friend.

16. What this argument overlooks, I think, is that in the case of Re R (Court of Appeal: order against identification) [1999] 3 FCR 213, this court (Lord Woolf MR, Butler-Sloss and Evans LJJ) upheld an order made in terms very similar to those of which Dr Pelling complains. Lord Woolf explains why such orders were made, and confirms that the court's practice in making such orders was unobjectionable.

17. The order in the instant case was, of course, made 10 years ago. Fortunately, apart from generating a substantial degree of forensic activity on Dr. Pelling's part (with the clarification and development of the law as a constituent element) nothing appears to have flowed from the particular wording of the order, and debates about its precise wording strike me as academic.
18. In my judgment, therefore, it is appropriate now to discharge the order, rather than to set it aside. It no longer fulfils any function, and is, moreover, now caught by the meaning given to section 97(2) of the Children Act 1989 by Clayton v. Clayton.

19. Another reason for discharging rather than setting aside is that I think it likely that Dr. Pelling would seek hereafter to argue that by setting aside the order I was taking the view that it should never have been made in the first place. As I have already made clear, I do not take that view. To the contrary, I take the view that an order against publicity would undoubtedly have been made in 1996, even if Dr. Pelling had been fully heard. Whilst I understand Dr. Pelling's objection to the precise wording of the order; (a) it appears to have been common form at the time; and (b) I am satisfied that had any adverse consequences been threatened against Dr. Pelling in relation to it, its wording would have been scrutinised and, if necessary, altered.

20. I am also fortified in the view which I take by the fact that Dr. Pelling, who is well aware of the nuances of legal language, sought first and foremost to have the order discharged. He only asked for it to be set aside in the alternative. In my judgment, his first approach is correct.

21. Finally, Dr Pelling referred me to the decision of the Privy Council in Grafton Isaacs v Emery Robertson [1985] AC 97. In my judgment, this decision does not assist Dr. Pelling. It confirms the well established rule that an order which is, on its face, regular, must be obeyed until it is set aside or discharged, even if it was made without jurisdiction: - see also Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] P. 285. In my judgment, despite the circumstances in which it was made, the order by this court dated 20 June 1996 was both lawful and in accordance with the practice in place in 1996. Times have, however, moved on, and the continuation of the order is no longer appropriate.

22. For all these reasons, I propose to discharge the order against publicity made by this court on 20 June 1996.

23. By way of footnote, it is clear that the respondent to this application has been served. She did not, however, appear. I note also that she did not appear in March and July 2004 when Pelling v Bruce Williams (supra) was heard and decided. I do not, accordingly, have any difficulty in making the order identified in paragraph 20 above in her absence.

Our Family Law Lacks Commonsense!

Yvonne Roberts, award winning journalist, has written this excellent article for the Guardian online. Emphasis added by EPC. It's all commonsense really, but unfortunately our government doesn't appear to have any commonsense at all! They continue to stumble from one failed policy to another. We have an idea! Why not try approaches that are actually working elsewhere?

Rules of disengagement
Yvonne Roberts
July 14, 2006 04:43 PM

Two billion pounds in child maintenance owed by absent fathers will never be paid. Another billion pounds has been wasted in trying to reform the Child Support Agency in the past three years. Now, it is to be axed and replaced by a mish mash arrangement of bailiffs (that's really going to help ruptured family ties) and a new "streamlined body" that intervenes only in the most difficult cases where couples cannot come to their own financial arrangements.

Who on earth does the government think the CSA is supposed to help now? These are the leaked proposals of Sir David Henshaw who has conducted a review of the CSA. It was a review constrained from the outset by its limited remit - only look at the bureaucratic red tape and the question of dosh, not the lack of support for the human turmoil that precedes one wage packet being divided for two households.if these proposals have been reported accurately, Henshaw also suggests tough sanctions against "deadbeat dads" including seizure of passports; electronic tagging and community service. All of which will only lead to buckets of extra blood on what is already a post-divorce and separation battlefield. One positive suggestion is that instead of losing a pound of benefit for every pound gained in maintenance, the resident parent will be able to keep benefits up to a threshold.

At present, it costs 70p for every £1 of child support collected. The hours of anger and frustration trying to contact the CSA, typified by one of my friends who has rung without results 27 times in a fortnight, goes uncounted. This shambles, however, was all so utterly unnecessary.

Before the British CSA was set up 13 years ago, civil servants visited Australia - where the satisfaction rate of both parents with the CSA , hits over 90%.In Australia, efforts are made to discover why a father isn't paying. Is he unemployed, ill, depressed, has he a large second family, is it family conflict? Does he have alcohol or drug problems. How can he be helped to sort himself out? The approach is holistic - it's not just about cash, it's about government recognising that, if children are involved, family life has to be helped to continue even after the adults' relationship ends.

The British civil servants came home - and, did it all differently. The result has been a bureaucratic disaster outstripped only by the distress and financial hardship and frustration of mothers and fathers to the detriment of the children.

Where we go from here, however, is not a matter for Work and Pensions Secretary John Hutton - who is expected to back the review's findings. The very fact that maintenance is deemed solely a matter for work and pensions betrays the fatal flaw. One that guarantees years of further cock-ups and unpaid maintenance.

Child support; contact and access to children after separation; an understanding of how relationships work; an awareness of the emotional needs of children and the availability of appropriate help if a marriage hits difficulties, are all of a piece. The spectrum that begins when a couple get together should continue in the event of them going their separate ways if the child's interests are genuinely to come first.

It doesn't happen here because the judiciary, policies and politicians' attitudes are disjointed, out of synch and anachronistic. Too often, when the going gets rough in a cohabitation or marriage, the old-fashioned belief that mother knows best and "owns" her offspring, rules - very definitely OK .

It's time for Britain in the 21st century to junk this damaging matrimonial rag-bag (difficult because the lawyers will resist the honey pot of marital breakdown being prised from their sticky hands). The government at present is engaged in a series of timid little exercises such as the now defunct "early intervention" project. It offered counselling and mediation for warring couples to settle post-separation arrangements over children. Predictions that it would be a total flop proved absolutely correct. Why? Partly because it's based on an assumption that both partners are in a similar emotional place when they start negotiating issues such as how often Johnny and Jane stay over with dad for the night .

In truth, according to Australian research, it takes three years before the unhappy partner (in 70% of cases, the woman) announces that she wishes to end the relationship. During this time, she mourns the loss of the relationship, adjusts her life and makes plans for a different future. Then she announces her intention to her partner. He, often, is utterly bemused at such drastic and irreversible action. That quickly turns to despair, anger and grief - especially because in most cases, he will lose his day-to-day life with his children.

All of which is exacerbated by his wife's apparent indifference . She, of course, has already navigated these choppy waters. Family courts in the UK fail to take this lack of sychronicity into account - as have many projects designed to help with mediation.In Britain, two attitudes cripple the birth of a radically different approach. The first is one that says since individual fathers are some or all of the following (rresponsible, unreliable, lying, violent, tight-fisted lazy bastards) we will not accept a philosophy that assumes both parents are equally capable of caring for a child.

The second concerns the deification of the mother as the "natural" carer and the belief, often prevalent in the courts, that she is always in the right. This is in spite of the fact that research indicates that from birth, positive input from dad, can and does make a significant difference to a child's outcomes.

Child support, contact, access and the promotion of emotional literacy (otherwise known as learning how not to behave like an arse in relationships) have to be linked by the expectation that both parents are equally involved in a child's upbringing, both practical and emotional. If a man (or woman) is abusive and violent then, of course, suitability as a parent is also impaired. It's bonkers to insist, as some courts now do, that contact between a violent parent and children is maintained against their wishes. This month, Australia has attempted to adopt a different approach. It has introduced the most radical reform of family law since the "no fault" divorce in 1975. The legislation driving the change is called the Family Law (Shared Parenting Responsibility) Act. It acknowledges that while a father (usually) may not live with his child full time, he remains a parent .

Australia's goal, via a number of measures, is to keep warring couples out of court if at all possible and away from lawyers. The legal profession, needless to say, is hostile. Now, in a series of meetings in an informal setting, a couple sits with two trained counsellors and two negotiators, working out a resolution with the help of a magistrate. Before, it took up to 15 months to conclude a case and a child might see a non-resident parent damagingly little . In pilots, under the new scheme, resolution comes in a couple of months. This isn't because a miracle is at work. It's because everyone knows that the the assumption is that both adults will behave like grown-ups and share parenting. For those who refuse to accept the terms, one option of last resort is jail.
The rules of the CSA have also been changed. Now, controversially, a full time mother is obliged to find work when the child reaches six. The incomes of both parents is taken into account, as are the expenses a non-resident parent may encounter having his child every other weekend and in the holidays.
The change in the Australian law is only a small part of a multi-million dollar exercise providing more help for couples as lovers and parents. Here, Harriet Harman, minister at the Department for Constitutional Affairs, is looking at ways to improve the business of marriages falling apart.
Ministers are fond of saying that 90% of relationship breakdowns involving children don't end up in court. That's no indicator of a successful solution from the point of view of the child. What that flags up is that many men believe they don't stand a chance in the courts. So, some melt away - but not nearly as many as urban myth would have us believe. According to research well over half of fathers stay in touch with their sons and daughters, no matter what.The Children and Adoption Bill that passed its third reading at the beginning of the month will enable courts to force parents in private law proceedings to undertake parenting classes, to support contact and to punish those who breach contact orders.

The framework is all wrong - punitive and authoritarian. For the majority of parents such an approach wouldn't be necessary if the terms of disengagement caught up with the modern day - and were fair, clear, sustained throughout the system and written into the fabric of society. That's the least children deserve.

www.EqualParenting.org

The Simon Clayton Story - Beware Judicial Spin!

INTRO - Beware Judicial Spin!

EPC's blog item on June 29th [CLICK HERE] reported the Clayton Landmark Judgment. At the end of that item there's a link so that you can download the Judgment from the main EPC site.

Non-resident parents who have fought through the courts to see their children will be very familiar with just how adept Judges can be at spinning Judgments to make the non-resident parent look like the bad guy! Appeal court judges, as in this case, do that while also bending over backwards to protect their lower court brothers' past decisions in the case - even when those decisions are cleary biased and based on an unbalanced "investigation" of the facts.

EPC knows just how selective Judges can be when they "hand down" their Judgments in an effort to justify their unbalanced decisions.

But there is a heart-rending human story behind every one of these cold-hearted, self-serving Judgments. Usually, as in the case of Simon Clayton, it is a story of a parent simply wanting to remain a meaningful part of their child's life. The media coverage below gives some insight into the human story. Judges leave out the bits that don't support their decisions which so often oppress and discriminate against the excluded parent.

As you read this story, keep in mind that it only came out right in the end for the child and the father because the mother CONSENTED to shared child care.

THE SIMON CLAYTON STORY - MEDIA COVERAGE:


'My daughter is my life. But I fought not just for myself. I had to go on for all the men, like me, who have lost their hope'
(Filed: 02/07/2006)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/02/ndad02.xml

A dozen children, dressed in a jumble of white gym kit and plimsolls, are racing along a stretch of freshly mown grass to shrieks of encouragement from their classmates. It is sports day at Llangorse Church in Wales primary school and Simon Clayton is looking for his seven-year-old daughter, Esti.

A digital camera hangs around his neck. He scans the children's faces. "I can't see her anywhere," he says, his blue eyes blinking rapidly. "At times like this, when I can't find her, my immediate thought is, 'Oh God, they've taken her into care. Some judge has come along and just taken her away'."

Simon Clayton: 'These courts have to be scrutinised'

The fear of losing Esti lurks constantly in her father's mind. For the past three years, Mr Clayton, 44, has been engaged in a legal battle to gain access to his child. It has cost him his job, his lifestyle and more than £20,000. He is, he says, one of countless men caught up in the bureaucracy and extraordinary secrecy of the family court system, which conducts all custody hearings behind closed doors. Until a successful appeal by Mr Clayton, last week, he was forbidden by a High Court injunction from disclosing any details of the case, or even discussing his daughter's care in public.

It is a landmark ruling, achieved only through Mr Clayton's terrier-like determination. "I was fighting not just for myself," he says, "but for all parents denied access to their child. Anything that obstructs reasonable access should be as socially unacceptable as drink-driving."

Little wonder then, that the small, but memorable goalposts in a child's life that other parents can sometimes take for granted - sports days, birthdays, the loss of a first tooth - are, to Mr Clayton, fragile. "I am pleased about the Court of Appeal decision - not elated, because I've been living with this for so long, but it's a victory and it's very satisfying," he says, in his first newspaper interview since the ruling.

Although the law has not been changed by the court action, the ruling means that judges will now consider long-term anonymity orders - Mr Clayton's was imposed until Esti reached 18 - more cautiously. The judgment will have an effect not only on parental-contact disputes, but also on cases involving children taken into care or adoption decisions. In each case, the balance between an entitlement to anonymity and the right to freedom of expression will have to be weighed.

A corner of the blanket of secrecy, says Mr Clayton, has thus been lifted. "There's got to be much more openness about what goes on in the family courts. These courts can, and frequently do, permanently remove children from their parents and regularly send people to jail. Yet their decisions and proceedings take place behind completely sealed doors and receive virtually no coverage in the media. These courts have to be scrutinised, so that people know what's going on, so that people can see the evidence against them."

Mr Clayton has long been determined that he should be able to talk freely about his case, both to highlight the inner workings of the family justice system and to promote the concept of "shared care"- whereby children spend equal amounts of time with each parent. His doggedness is evident: even after a hard-won court battle for shared access of his daughter in 2005, he felt the injustice of family court secrecy so strongly that he kept on fighting for the right to talk about his case.

He is not alone in calling for greater openness. Earlier this year, Harriet Harman, the Minister for Constitutional Affairs, announced a consultation on opening up the family courts to increased scrutiny. On Thursday, Lord Justice Wall, a senior Court of Appeal judge, suggested that the media should be admitted to proceedings to shake off "the canard of secret justice".

Such secrecy has led to a lack of confidence in the family courts and an increasing sense that the system has something to hide, fuelled by pressure groups such as Fathers4Justice and Families Need Fathers. In a criminal court, a defendant can be convicted only if their guilt is beyond reasonable doubt. A family court takes its decisions - sometimes involving the removal of a child from parental care - on a balance of probabilities, and few judges allow parents to call experts in their defence. [emphasis added by EPC]

"There came a stage when, every time I saw Esti, I was asking myself, 'Is this the last time I will see my child?' " says Mr Clayton. "Society believes that a man should not show his emotions, that a man does not have that natural bond with his child that a woman possesses. I find that insulting. Esti is my life. I had to keep on fighting for all the men like me, men who have lost their hope."

Back at the school sports day, Esti has been found, sitting cross-legged on the grass, chatting happily with friends. She spots her father and runs up to him, hugging his legs. "There's a dads' race soon," she says, prompting a theatrical groan from Mr Clayton. She giggles. For a child who has been at the centre of a protracted custody battle, Esti is remarkably well-adjusted and cheerful.

"The absurd thing is that it was just an ordinary little case," says Mr Clayton, after we have driven back to his grey-stone farmhouse set against the lush hills and valleys of the Herefordshire countryside, just outside Hay-on-Wye. "My ex-wife and I separated in 2000 and had already worked out an arrangement whereby Esti spent alternate weeks with each of us [Mr Clayton's Polish-born former wife, Aneta, whom he married in 1998, lives a short drive away in Brecon, mid-Wales]. Then my wife, for no real reason, ended up getting a solicitor involved. He sent me a letter, and once you've started family court proceedings, that's it, you end up in Mr Kafka's world. It's like throwing petrol on the fire. Suddenly, this case develops and the lawyers are egging you on to make more money from you and prolong it as long as possible."

The case dragged on. Mr Clayton, who had formerly been a bookseller in Hay-on-Wye after several years as a charter pilot, gave up his job to concentrate on mounting his own legal defence. The paperwork, he says, was "horrific". "I had to write out so many statements that my handwriting became completely illegible. I was under a lot of stress. I wasn't sleeping, my lips were bleeding with stress. My personality changed, because you're stuck in this adversarial system. I became somebody I liked less because I was having to fight, having to get unpleasant because people were being unpleasant to me."

By April 2003, Mr Clayton felt he could take the pressure no longer. During a routine visit from Esti, days before a custody hearing, he took his daughter "on holiday". They drove in a camper van to Portugal where, beset by engine trouble, they came to a halt and spent several days on the beach. Back home, their disappearance had sparked a police inquiry. "They said I abducted her," he says. "It was blown out of proportion. We had been on several trips abroad before then and there wasn't anything wrong with it. Esti was well used to it."

Did she miss her mother? "If she was upset, I diverted her attention, I took her emotions in another direction," he says blithely. Six weeks later, Mr Clayton was recognised by a passerby and arrested. He spent 40 days in a Portuguese jail before being extradited to Britain and serving a further four-and-a-half months. "It wasn't my lowest point. That was in the run-up: that uncertainty, where you have no idea of what you're meant to do.

"At least when you're in jail you've got no legal letters coming through the door. You also have people to talk to who can understand how evil the state could be. Most of my fellow inmates were very supportive," he says, pausing as he runs his fingers through greying hair. "I don't think a mother would have been treated like that. It broke my heart."

On his release, in December 2003, Mr Clayton faced a further custody battle to gain access to his daughter. It did not come to court until April 2004, when he was finally allowed to see Esti again. But the shared access agreed upon by the couple still needed official court approval. By July 2005, the status quo was formalised. Esti now spends alternate weeks with each parent and the couple share their tax credits. Relations between the two are cordial and, at Esti's instigation, they occasionally meet up for family meals.

Although the arrangement sounds straightforward, it is rare in British courts, which favour the mother as prime carer. "That attitude is retrograde," says Mr Clayton. "I think there should be a presumption of shared care in custody battles. I am an utterly devoted parent. I don't think you can build up a proper relationship if you're only allowed to see your child every other weekend. Our relationship is constantly growing and you develop this fundamental, unconditional love. She's an incredibly beguiling, spiritful child with a great wit."
So beguiling, in fact, that she did manage to persuade her father to run in the "dads' race". We watched as Mr Clayton lined up alongside all the other fathers. A teacher blew the starting whistle and he sprinted for all he's worth, crossing the finish line with a broad grin on his face. He didn't win or even earn a place. For Simon Clayton, simply taking part was prize enough.

My fight for every father
By TESSA CUNNINGHAM, Daily Mail 08:28am 4th July 2006
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=393926&in_page_id=1879

Together after the trauma: Simon Clayton with daughter Esti

Femail news

It cost his home, his job and his freedom. But this week Simon won the right to see his daughter AND a £20,000 battle to reveal the details of the case. Now, other parents can lift the secrecy that too often mars family courts:

[But not while their cases are ongoing - i.e. when it really matters - and courts continue to be free to make gag orders that extend long after the case has closed - EPC COMMENT]

Exchanging proud glances as they cheer daughter Esti on at her school sports day, Aneta and Simon Clayton look like any other happy couple. As Esti reaches the finishing line, Simon whoops for joy and Aneta runs to hug their daughter. Esti, seven, looks the picture of contentment.
Indeed, seeing the happy family it's hard to believe these devoted parents are actually divorced. It's even harder to believe that just three years ago they were embroiled in a custody battle so vicious it hit the headlines when Simon, driven to breaking point by their bitter feud, fled abroad with Esti. Police launched an international manhunt and overnight the couple's domestic tragedy was being played out in the newspapers and on television. Weeping Aneta gave a string of interviews, begging for Esti's safe return. Police blanketed European holiday spots with 'Wanted' posters. Holidaymakers were urged to report sightings.

Finally, after six nailbiting weeks, Simon was arrested at gun-point in Portugal. After two months in a squalid Faro prison, he was extradited to Britain to stand trial. He pleaded guilty to child abduction and was jailed for nine months. By that stage the warring couple couldn't even agree on the time of day.

One would have thought their relationship would be completely unsalvageable. Far from it. They now have a model divorce. And their extraordinary agreement over Esti could serve as a template for other divorced parents. Until now, family court proceedings have always taken place behind closed doors. But after winning a landmark ruling in the High Court last week, both Simon, 44, and Aneta, 32, can talk about their ground-breaking arrangements.

The judgment will have far-reaching effects and now mothers and fathers whose children are taken away from them - be it by ex-partners or social services - will be able to ask for media coverage of their plight. 'Ours was just an ordinary little case at the outset,' says Simon. 'But it got totally out of control once lawyers got involved. My story should be a warning to every parent. I'm elated I can now expose the hell our family suffered. I had to keep on fighting for all the men like me, men who have lost their hope.'

He believes that by putting what were effectively secret hearings into the open, injustices can be exposed or prevented. Not only do the Claytons share every aspect of Esti's care equally, the child even has her own bill of rights - of which more later. She's encouraged to love both parents equally while they promise only to look for the good in each other. A tall order for most parents - let alone for this couple.

Parent charter

After three years of hell, it's a charter made in heaven - but it wasn't forged without sacrifices. 'I lost my home and my job and ran up legal bills of more than £20,000,' says Simon. 'It's affected every aspect of my life. I'd love to remarry and have more children, but while this was going on, how could I commit?'

Simon was working as a pilot when he met Aneta, who now lives in Brecon with her new partner Terry, during a stopover in Warsaw in May 1997. 'She was working in the bookshop of the hotel and we got talking,' he says. 'We bonded very quickly. She was pretty and vivacious with a stunning figure and beautiful long brown hair. We seemed to have a lot in common. We both love reading and simple pleasures such as walks in the country.'

Simon returned to his cottage outside Hay-on-Wye. When Aneta followed for a holiday shortly afterwards, their romance rapidly intensified. 'With hindsight it was all too fast but, as Aneta didn't have a visa to stay in Britain, the pressure was on,' says Simon. 'We married in December 1997 and within three months Aneta was pregnant. 'It was a happy accident. Women admit their body clocks are ticking. Well, men's can too. I've always wanted children. I had an idyllic childhood in North Wales, where my father was an architect and my mother a housewife.'
Aneta had enjoyed a traditional Roman Catholic childhood in a small Polish town - her father was a policeman and her mother also a housewife - and was delighted to be a mum. Esti was born on December 28, 1998. 'Her birth blew me away,' Simon says. 'As a pilot I had enjoyed an enchanted life. I travelled the globe and even spent a year as a private pilot for the rock group Iron Maiden. But nothing compared to the exhilaration of being a dad. I knew I'd been given the greatest gift — and the most important job on earth.'

Determined to spend time with his new family, Simon quit his job. The couple set up a bookshop in Hay-on-Wye so they could spend quality time with Esti. 'We did everything equally. I changed at least as many nappies as Aneta,' Simon says.

Unravelling marriage

But, while they were united in adoring their baby, their relationship quickly unravelled. Struggling with the language and isolated in their country cottage, Aneta felt lonely and bored. Soon they were rowing constantly.

In April 2000, when Esti was just 16 months old, they separated, divorcing two years later. At first things were amicable. Simon stayed in the marital home so he could maintain the business. Aneta and Esti moved into a rented home nearby. They agreed to share childcare.

'We were devastated that our marriage was over. The last thing we wanted was for Esti to come from a broken home,' says Simon. 'But despite all the sadness, I was convinced we could stay friends. We hadn't had affairs. We hadn't been violent. We had simply fallen out of love.

'I assumed we would have a civilised divorce and organise childcare as we'd always done - equally. We were such good friends I even helped Aneta pack and drove her to her new home.'
To help arrange their divorce both hired lawyers - a decision that within months was to turn their relationship into raging warfare.

'The second you hire lawyers you throw petrol on the problem,' says Simon, who not surprisingly now campaigns for fathers' rights . 'Little niggles get magnified. Solicitors want to make money - it's in their interests to keep the dispute going.

'We would have silly tit-for-tat rows. If I was late to pick Esti up one day, Aneta might punish me by being late the next time, but left to our own devices we could have worked that out. Instead I'd receive an insensitive, rude letter from her solicitor reprimanding me. Then my lawyer would send her one. I don't blame Aneta and I know she doesn't blame me. We were pawns.

'But the toll on my health was terrible. Every morning I'd feel sick to the stomach when the post arrived - wondering what horror I'd find next.'

Despite all their problems, Esti was still sharing half her time with each parent. However, as the couple couldn't agree the finer details, their lawyers advised a court hearing. And it was then that the situation rapidly deteriorated. Aneta was advised to seek sole custody of Esti, allowing Simon regular contact. She was told this was standard procedure for mothers.

'The bottom fell out of my world,' says Simon. 'Esti was three-and-a-half. All her life we had shared her care equally. She had two bedrooms, two sets of clothes and two lots of toys. She had the best of both worlds. At my home she played with her ferret, Fifi. At Aneta's she played with Barbie dolls.

'But my lawyer told me that any decision would be entirely down to the judge. Our little girl's future was out of our hands. Anything could happen.

'From that moment I never slept properly. Every time I saw Esti I wondered if it would be the last happy time we'd enjoy. It was a living hell. I kept begging Aneta to sort things out between us but she wouldn't listen.'

Eventually, Aneta became so tired of Simon's anguished letters that her lawyer advised her to cut off all communication. And then, on April 9, 2003 - just a week before a final court hearing to decide Esti's future - Simon made his fateful decision.

Vanished

He booked a one-way ferry ticket from Portsmouth to Caen, in France, and vanished with Esti, then four.

When Aneta arrived three days later to pick Esti up, she found the house deserted and a note from Simon saying he had gone on holiday for three weeks to spend some quality time with their daughter. She was distraught.

'I feel very guilty about it now,' admits Simon. 'It was a moment of madness. But I never intended to alarm Aneta and I certainly wasn't kidnapping Esti. I just wanted to get away with her and clear the air.

'I love travelling. In the past, I'd taken Esti backpacking around America and North Africa, but relations between Aneta and me had deteriorated so badly, I knew it would be utterly impossible to agree holiday dates without months of lawyers' letters.

'Aneta knew I'd been planning a holiday in Europe. She also knew I only ever booked one-way ferry tickets. It never occurred to me she'd imagine I had abducted our daughter.'
That wasn't how Aneta saw it. She appeared on TV, begging the public to help return her daughter. 'If you know where she is, please contact me. Esti's missing me. It's time for her to come back home,' she sobbed.

Driving through France, Spain and Portugal in his VW camper van, Simon claims he was oblivious to the distress he was causing Aneta, or the manhunt back home. But surely he must have known how distressed the child's mother would have been. Moreover, having said he'd be gone three weeks, he remained on the Continent for twice that long. Who knows if he would ever have come home, had he not been spotted by a British holidaymaker in a tiny fishing village in the Algarve.

Esti was paddling in the sea when police pounced. 'A policeman smashed me to the ground and stuck a gun in my head,' says Simon. 'It was like something out of Miami Vice. When he told me, in broken English, that I was being arrested for kidnap, I was in shock.'

Simon was bundled into a police car. Esti, still in her wet bathing suit, followed in another car. At the police station Simon was allowed a final goodbye before Esti was whisked off to spend the night with a social worker before being reunited with Aneta. Simon wasn't to see his daughter for 12 months.

'Standing in the police station, saying goodbye, I was determined not to scare Esti,' says Simon. 'I cuddled her and brushed her hair - it was still matted from the sea.

'For the only time in her life I lied to her. I said that I was ill and needed to go to hospital and that she would be spending the night with a kind lady. Her lower lip wobbled but she tried to be brave for my sake. I thought my heart was going to break.'

Simon spent the next two months in a cell at Faro jail. 'The conditions were like a scene from Midnight Express - three of us were banged up for 20 hours a day in a cell barely two metres each way. Our toilet was a bucket in the corner.

'There was no fan and the heat reached 50 degrees. I thought I was going to die. I'd never even had a parking ticket. I was in a hellhole, all because I loved my daughter.'

Devastated by the distress he'd caused Aneta, Simon sent her a letter of apology. But she was so angry, she didn't even respond. Extradited to England after two months, Simon pleaded guilty to child abduction and was sentenced to nine months in jail. Taking into account the time he'd served in Portugal and on remand it meant spending another two months in prison.

'I kept thinking I'd wake up and find it was all a dream,' he says. 'I could have beaten someone half to death and had a lighter sentence. But I was advised to plead guilty to save the stress of a full-blown court case which might have involved Esti being called as a witness.

'In jail, conditions were utterly terrifying. The queue for methadone - a heroin replacement for addicts - was longer than the lunch queue. I couldn't sleep at night for the howls of inmates half-crazed as they went cold turkey.

'I blocked my mind to Esti. I didn't have a single photo of her in my cell. I knew if I thought about her, I'd go to pieces. It was a living bereavement.'

Homeless and jobless

Simon was finally released on December 1, 2003. He was homeless, jobless and with a prison record. Now he faced a further custody battle to gain access to Esti.

Finally, in April 2004 - a year after last seeing her - he was allowed a few hours with her. But he was banned from being alone with her in case he tried to abduct her.

'Esti had grown three inches. I'd missed her fifth birthday and Christmas so I'd brought her loads of presents - a doll's house and set of farm animals,' he recalls. 'She was really shy at first. I started talking about her pets and gradually she warmed.'

But Simon was still determined to fight for shared care. His hopes seemed slim, but in July 2005, Simon and Aneta found themselves at the High Court in Cardiff for a final hearing.

Against all the odds, over two days the couple thrashed out an agreement.
'It was actually Aneta's barrister, Anthony Kirk QC, who suggested it,' Simon says. 'Until then we'd been at loggerheads. But he helped us draw up an agreement which put Esti first and acknowledged that we both loved her and both agreed it was in her best interests to have a mum and a dad in her life.

[Simon was extremely lucky that (a) mother agreed to this and that (b) this barrister was involved. IT IS VITAL TO REALIZE THAT had Aneta decided to fight shared care there is not a snowball's chance in hell that the court would have ordered it. Simon would have been lucky to have been awarded alternate weekend contact and half the holidays! - EPC COMMENT]

'For the first time, Aneta and I could see we were on the same side - working for our beloved daughter. It was a minor miracle.'

'Bill of Rights'

The couple also agreed a special 'Bill of Rights' for Esti. She's encouraged to love both parents equally and both parents promise not to use her as a pawn in any disagreements.

'I couldn't believe we'd done it,' says Simon. 'Afterwards Aneta and I even had a meal together. The bitterness evaporated. It's been a year now and our arrangement works like a dream. Esti has separate bedrooms and full sets of clothes at both houses, which are 23 miles apart. She spends one week at my house, one at Aneta's.

'We are flexible. My father died a few weeks ago from a heart condition. Aneta willingly agreed Esti could come to his funeral although it was during "her" time.

'Esti has two very different worlds. At my home she goes riding and for long walks. I don't have a TV so we read a lot. At Aneta's she enjoys shopping and catching up on the soaps.

'Despite our terrible history, Esti is remarkably unaffected. She's self-confident and outgoing with a wicked sense of humour. Most of all, she feels deeply loved.

'Aneta and I talk regularly. When Esti has a doctor's appointment we go together. My only anger is with lawyers. Countless parents - usually fathers - suffer as I have. But our case shows there can be a better way.' [But only if the mother agrees! EPC COMMENT]


Estranged father's victory over family court blanket of secrecy

By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor(Filed: 28/06/2006)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/28/nfam428.xml

A small corner of the blanket of secrecy covering family cases was lifted yesterday when the Court of Appeal allowed an estranged father to discuss a ruling involving his daughter.
The outcome was a victory for Simon Clayton, from Hay-on-Wye, Herefordshire, who will be allowed to put pictures of his seven-year-old daughter, Esti, on his website and discuss the agreement he had reached with her mother for sharing their daughter's care.

However, the court banned him from involving Esti in a film he wanted to make about how he had abducted her to Portugal in 2003. Three appeal judges decided that, on matters affecting her welfare, the child's right to respect for her private life under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention outweighed her father's right to freedom of expression under Article 10.

In an unusual move, Sir Mark Potter, who presided over the appeal, issued a press release saying that he and his fellow judges regarded their decision "as a small step towards greater transparency and rebutting the slur inherent in the charge that the family courts administer 'secret' justice".

Mr Clayton, who campaigns for fathers' rights in the family courts, said of the ruling: "Today the Court of Appeal has allowed me to speak freely."

He added: "I see the judgment as a big step forward. Until today I was not allowed to publish this information." Mr Clayton and his wife, Aneta, married in 1997 and separated in 2000, sharing the care of their daughter.

But when Mrs Clayton began court proceedings for contact and residence orders, her husband abducted Esti, living in a camper van in Portugal for five and a half weeks until he was arrested. He pleaded guilty to child abduction and spent six months in prison.

A BBC documentary about his case, Simon Says, was broadcast in January 2004. Three months later, Mr Clayton was allowed renewed contact with his daughter.

Mrs Clayton took out an injunction when she heard that her estranged husband was intending to discuss the case and revisit Portugal to make a film about their daughter's experiences.
Sir Mark said the practical effect of allowing the appeal would be that every court would have to justify continuing an order for anonymity after concluding a case. But he said this did not mean parents were free to "draw their children into an ongoing public debate about their welfare or other wider issues".

LANDMARK CASE ENDS BAN ON SECRECY

Clayton v Clayton [2006] EWCA Civ 878 - LANDMARK CASE

A successful appeal against injunctions preventing a parent from publishing matters concerning his daughter.

This landmark case clarifies the issues surrounding privacy in Court Proceedings under the Children Act, Administration of Justice Act 1960 and the Human Rights Act. The President of the Family Division, Sir Mark Potter, reiterates the underlying law and reviews the appropriate cases. The key passage is paragraphs 77-78 which sets out new guidance on the restriction that can be placed on reporting after the conclusion of proceedings.

Download the Judgment - click here

MEDIA COVERAGE BELOW

The Times
June 28, 2006
Children's right to anonymity ended for family courts
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2246764,00.html
By Frances Gibb, Legal Editor

A LANDMARK Court of Appeal ruling yesterday ended the automatic ban on identifying children involved in family court cases, even after proceedings have ended. The blanket of silence that prevents public discussion of decisions to take children from their families, or to reunite them, was lifted.

The Court of Appeal ruled that Simon Clayton, who spent more than three years in dispute with his former wife Aneta over contact with their daughter, Estelle, 10, should have the right to talk openly about his case.

Judges will balance in each case whether any entitlement to anonymity should outweigh the right to freedom of expression. Publicity will not be allowed in any case where it could in any way harm or cause distress to a child. The judgment is expected to extend beyond parental contact disputes and affect all cases involving children, including those of young people being taken into care or adoption decisions.

It comes after an assurance from Harriet Harman, the Minister for Constitutional Affairs, that she will consult this year on opening up the family courts to greater scrutiny, a move supported by growing numbers of both senior family judges and politicians. They believe that greater openness would help to boost public confidence in the family courts and dispel the impression of decisions taken behind closed doors by unaccountable judges.
Judges called it “a small step towards greater transparency” that would help to “rebut the slur inherent in the charge that the family courts administer ‘secret justice’”.

The victory for Mr Clayton came after he reached a novel “shared care” agreement with his former wife.

A campaigner for fathers’ rights and a volunteer adviser to other divorced and separated men, he had wanted to show the parenting plan to others as an example of good practice that can work in the interests of all parties, even in cases that had previously been marked by conflict.
But he had been prevented by the usual blanket injunction in such cases, which would have remained until his daughter’s 18th birthday. Fathers’ rights campaigners said that the ruling would shed a powerful light into the darkness of the family courts, making them accountable for their actions for the first time.

Jim Parton, of Families Need Fathers, said: “Until now people could not see what was going on and how the system was failing families. They could not see the bias against fathers, the general incompetence and the inappropriateness of the whole adversarial system for dealing with cases involving children, which have the potential to mess up children’s lives for good.”

Sir Mark Potter, President of the Family Division who headed the panel of three judges hearing the appeal, said that Mr Clayton had wanted to be able “to debate issues about the family justice system in public by reference to his own case”.

Mr Clayton, from Hay-on-Wye, Herefordshire, had also wanted to campaign for better and more open family justice, including the sharing of tax credits and child benefit when there are shared parenting arrangements.

He had also wanted to put photographs of the child on his website, recording ordinary family happenings. But Mr Clayton was barred by the High Court from using any family names or discussing matters relating to education, maintenance and finance or any of the matters heard in court. But the appeal judges said that Mr Justice Hedley had been wrong to continue the injunction after the end of the case.

In a summary, Sir Mark said the ruling “may well have widespread repercussions for parents and children in relation to the identification of children”. He added: “Essentially, the decision concerns the balance between children’s right to privacy and their parents’ right to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights.”

He said that the father should be allowed to debate issues about the family justice system with reference to his child’s case. “These are all acceptable activities which should not be restrained by an order preventing identification of the child,” he said.

DOWNLOAD THE CLAYTON JUDGMENT

Children and Adoption Act doomed to failure!

The Children and Adoption Bill has now been turned into an Act.

Download the new Act

Unfortunately it fails to introduce anything that will solve the problem of children losing contact with their parents for no good reason after divorce and separation. It is therefore doomed to failure!

FAMILY COURTS GET WORSE!

EQUAL PARENTING COUNCIL (EPC) notes from the news today that Bank of England Governor, Mervyn King, has criticized the court system - this is in the wake of the Bank's 13-year legal battle to fight off a negligence claim after lender, BCCI, collapsed in 1991 owing more than nine billion pounds.

He called the claim against the Bank, the "most expensive fishing expedition in history" and he said the case gave rise to serious questions about the legal system.

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr King when he says that a legal framework for enforcing contracts and resolving disputes is “not just an arcane process which allows professionals to earn vast fees, but should be an integral part of the infrastructure of a successful market economy”. I agree with him that we need simple, clear and timely ways of resolving disputes.

As Mr Justice Lightman has said, the public sees the English legal system as a profitable monopoly for lawyers.

The same is truer of our family court system. At least in this case the Bank has recently been awarded £73 million in costs after the collapse of the claim against it. And at least this dispute was only about money! Our arcane family court system ruins people's lives every day, especially the lives of the children involved in family breakdown.

Mr King concluded his remarks by saying, "I very much hope that the Government will look carefully at this case, learn the lessons, and take steps to ensure that such an outcome can never occur again" I doubt very much that this Government will do any such thing!

We’ve had umpteen consultations and reviews of the family court system. Over many years, EPC has spoon-fed the Government with proven strategies from Best Practice jurisdictions that would swiftly improve outcomes for children and families. Yet the Government has failed to do anything meaningful. In fact the system is getting worse rather than better. The same, depressing familiar complaints still flood into EPC on a daily basis.

Common-sense is a very uncommon commodity in this Government!

Please send feedback to info@EqualParenting.org

Parent Alienation Syndrome, the video!

Much harm comes to all when one parent brain washes a child against the other parent. These represent some of the toughest cases in child custody disputes.

View this video about Parent Alienation Syndrome:
http://www.yoursocialworker.com/videos/PAS.wmv

F4J raising their ugly heads again?

PROTEST FATHERS STILL HAVE LOTTO TO LEARN

Equal Parenting Council agrees wholeheartedly with Eamonn Holmes's views about the destructive comeback stunt by F4J that disrupted the National Lottery - read Eamonn's column at:
http://www.people.co.uk/news/eammonholmes/

It's a great pity that F4J have raised their ugly heads again. Eamonn is right – their Cause is a just one; but they don’t go about their campaign in a way that engenders publicly sympathy – quite the reverse!

They do a great disservice to the legions of decent parents who have lost their children simply because our system of family justice does not work. Why? Because these protesters make people believe through their loutish conduct that courts are excluding parents for good reasons!

In terms of doing something positive, we urge YOU to make sure their MP supports Early Day Motion 128, which now has substantial support in Parliament. It calls for a change in the law that will install a legal presumption that all decent parents should be entitled, after separation, to spend a reasonable amount of PARENTING TIME (so called "contact") with their children.

The wording and progress of this EDM can be tracked online at:
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=28316&SESSION=875

Please check that your MP has signed it. If they've not, please get on to them immediately, if not sooner!!!

Is Shared Parenting the best option for kids?

New York (which lags behind the rest of USA in terms of shared parenting) is soon to consider a family law bill to bring it up to date with other USA jurisdictions.

It takes the common-sense approach that fit parents would have joint custody (shared residence in UK parlence) of their children. The Bill hopes to "reduce post-divorce conflict" and make joint custody the norm rather than the exception.

Click here for more info on this Bill - also for a number of findings of US studies which support joint custody/shared residence for children after their parents separate - and in order to post your own thoughts on the EQUAL PARENTING COUNCIL FORUMS.

Australian Reforms way ahead of UK

The Family First amendment put forward to strengthen the Family Law Amendment Bill in the Australian Senate in support of a presumption of Equal Parenting Time looks like it may have the numbers to pass!

Click here to learn more

VIRTUAL PARENTING ORDERS IN USA

USA - Divorce put David List and his 2-year-old daughter on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean, and he worried that she would soon forget him.

She hasn't, though. List secured an order allowing him "virtual contact" -- the chance to talk with his daughter via a webcam over the internet– they now usually connect at least twice a week.

However, it is feared that USA judges might use the option of virtual visitation as justification for ordering fewer real contact - as UK judges do with contact-centre visitation.

Another divorced dad, Michael Gough, who fought in the courts to eventually win a virtual contact order after his daughter moved away, said "I saw her first loose tooth. I saw her haircut, new outfits -- things you want to see on a daily basis but you can't in person because you're a divorced parent".

GIVE YOUR VIEWS ON THIS SUBJECT - Click here for more info

Fathers4Justice terminated!

It comes as a huge relief to me that Fathers4Justice (F4J) have folded their tent. I don’t agree that they advanced the campaign for reform of our appalling family justice system. Quite the reverse! Their antics alienated the very people whose hearts and minds we needed to win over; their conduct made people say, “No wonder they’re not being allowed to see their kids!”

Mainstream organizations like EQUAL PARENTING COUNCIL, FNF, MATCH and JUMP have been lobbying for years and we’ve made considerable progress in getting across what is quite a sophisticated case. We have, for example, in recent years persuaded those at the top of the Conservative Party of the rightness of our grievances and our reform programme for solving the problem. We have networked around the globe with judges, family law practitioners, mediators, mental health professionals, MPs and garnered their support. It has been (and continues to be) a long hard slog. I regret that we’ve not yet achieved any meaningful change in the law. Neither did F4J.

I believe F4J hurt our cause. They were successful in grabbing the headlines, but I think the publicity had a negative impact. The feedback we’ve received globally is that they are perceived as irresponsible – and as lunatics and women-haters. F4J Founder, Matt O’Connor, seems to have reached that conclusion himself and uses it to justify the closing down of his pressure group.

The fact is, when ordinary, decent parents are prevented from seeing their children, they become incensed and outraged. Some of them become bitter and twisted, which is to be expected. We have had our fair share of them, as have the other main organizations. They are unmanageable. The most extreme of them gravitated to F4J with predictable results. The fact is, most of these extremists can’t even get on with each other!

However, whilst I don’t like them or their works, I recognize that the vast majority ended up the way they are because they and their children were badly wronged by our family courts and a justice system that doesn’t deliver justice. It delivers injustice and misery to children, parents and grandparents. This can be fixed by implementing changes that have been tried and tested abroad. We are 30 years behind!

These changes will be won by reasonable argument and respectful persuasion, not by obnoxious and offensive conduct.

Tony Coe, President
EQUAL PARENTING COUNCIL
tony.coe@EqualParenting.org
www.EqualParenting.org

CLICK HERE to post comment on the EPC FORUMS

Parental Alienation - unrecognised emotional abuse

Spanish forensic psychologist Jose Manuel Aguilar Cuenca believes that parents who are guilty of alienating their children from the other parent during the separation process are committing a very harmful act.

In a recent article in the Magazine Lex Nova, Cuenca argues that this type of emotional abuse by the alienating parents “passes almost unrecognized at a technical level by legal professionals.”

Click here to read the article

EPC President's New Year Message for 2006

A NEW YEAR MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF EQUAL PARENTING COUNCIL (EPC)

There is one Family Law Reform in 2006 that could end misery for so many children, parents & grandparents! It would also save the country a fortune and lead to children being better supported financially, as well as emotionally by their parents!

As for the CSA, we need sensible reform based on tried & tested measures that work before we impose electronic tagging & curfews on parents who are being wrongly excluded from their children's lives!

While I was in Kensington High Street doing some shopping with my daughter, Toni-Amanda, just before Christmas, I bumped into the second wife (Pamela) of a long standing supporter (George) of EPC. George's first wife (Sue) has been obstructing his contact with his young daughter (Mandy) for many years.

George is a softly spoken, gentle, professional man. The idiots at CAFCASS, as is all too typical of them, would not lift a finger to discourage Sue from obstructing the relationship between Mandy and her dad. In fact, they encouraged it! They once wrote an unhelpful report referring to George as "too cerebral" - as though his impressive intellect could somehow be used to diminish his status as a parent to Mandy.

Pamela told me during our brief Xmas-shopping encounter at Marks & Spencers that, after a long, fruitless struggle, George decided to give up the fight to be a parent to Mandy. As so often occurs in these cases, Mandy eventually said she no longer wished to see her dad. CAFCASS would therefore do nothing further - not that they had ever done anything useful in the case anyway! Therefore Mandy has lost a wonderful dad, needlessly, and George is devastated.

George and Mandy's case is all too familiar to EPC. Sue was able to destroy the parent-child bond between this good father and his daughter, perhaps forever, aided and abetted by CAFCASS and our useless family justice system. Such circumstances cause, in our experience, so many good parents either to give up on trying to see their children, or to accept paltry crumbs of "contact" with their kids!

As we start 2006, let's remember the millions of children that were denied their right to spend any part of the Christmas/New Year holiday with one of their parents. Millions of children of separated parents were also denied the right to see grandparents over the holiday. Too many fit parents and grandparents are denied the right ever to see their children.

Why is it that children are being denied access to fit parents and grandparents when it is patently contrary to their best interests? There is a simple, two-part answer to that question, which is this: -

1. The parent with de facto custody of the children does not want to allow access
2. Our family court system doesn't work for these children and their excluded parents/grandparents

It is tragic for all the children, parents and grandparents who fall victim to our useless system. Yet it is a needless tragedy.

EPC has long been saying that there is a fundamental flaw in our family law - namely, it lacks a legal presumption (rebuttable for cause) that all fit parents should be legally entitled to substantial parenting time (our preferred term over "contact" or "access") following separation from the other parent.

In other words, parenting should be shared between the two parents unless a parent poses a safety risk. As I understand it, this is also the position of the Labour Government, yet Labour refuses to correct our flawed family court system to make shared parenting a reality for children, parents and grandparents.

Government argues that to provide excluded fit parents with a legal right (rebuttable for cause) to see their children would expose more children to violence. In fact the reverse is the case. Shared parenting is safer for children. Unfortunately, Government continues to suffer from a blind spot over this issue, which means children continue to suffer needlessly.

As we've demonstrated to Government numerous times, Best Practice jurisdictions across the USA are light years ahead of UK. Now Australia, after much research, is radically amending its Family Law Act to help children keep both parents. The concept of parental equality is being introduced. Under the reformed law, Australian judges will have to consider EQUAL TIME-SHARING in the first instance. They will have to give WRITTEN REASONS for any departure from equality. At the very least, contact will have to be FREQUENT, SIGNIFICANT and RECURRING.

Here at EPC, it is our hope that in 2006 the UK Government will take similar steps towards securing our children's right to be raised by both their parents. Our children are this country's future. Good, balanced parenting gives children the best chance of a successful life. It is therefore crucial to the success of our country that we make this simple reform to our family law system so that fit parents start to be treated equally by our legal system.

It would also mean that the fundamental Human Right of children and parents, like Mandy and George, to enjoy a family life together will have the beginnings of some sort of protection under UK law.

EQUAL TREATMENT of fit parents will also lead to better financial support for children because, as a matter of common-sense, we would not need to spend billions of pounds beating parents over the head to financially support their children! As the authorities learnt long ago in USA, parents who are being allowed to be fully involved in their children's lives are far more likely to support them financially, as well as emotionally.

And there's still more good news on the financial side too (unless you are a family lawyer)! The country can save a fortune in money wasted on senseless legal battles over children's arrangements.

To learn more, please visit www.EqualParenting.org Please support our campaign in 2006.

I wish everyone a very Happy 2006!

Tony Coe, President, EQUAL PARENTING COUNCIL

www.EqualParenting.org

Children have a Right to Both Parents
UK Branch of Children's Rights Council

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