MPs slam Cameron’s shared parenting plan

Mr Beith’s position on shared parenting is, perhaps, best viewed in its full historical and cultural context.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, British family laws were such that, if the father so wished it, separated mothers were likely to lose all contact with their children.
Development of the law occurred very slowly indeed. Some change came with the Child Custody Act of 1839 and the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857, but it was not until 1925 that the welfare of the child became paramount. At every stage, there were numerous ‘Mr Beiths’ who resisted any development in family law.

Even today, in certain Middle Eastern cultures, separated mothers are treated despicably and are often denied access to their children. Here, too, there are ‘Mr Beiths’ resisting change.
The injustices experienced by British women in the past are, sadly, being visited upon British fathers in 21st Century Britain.

A father can be fully involved in the day-to-day care of his children. And yet, following separation, he can find himself completely excluded from their lives. How can this possibly occur, when the Children Act of 1989 so clearly dictates that the paramount interests of the children should be served by the courts?

Following separation, the family courts automatically seek to anoint one parent with the status of ‘Primary Carer’. This will usually be the parent who, prior to separation, undertook 51% or more of childcare duties. As we know, in most cases, this is the mother. The law then bestows upon that Primary Carer a grossly disproportional degree of power over the children, vis-à-vis the Non-Primary Carer (the father).

In most cases, separated parents are able to focus upon the well-being of their children and can come to a mutually agreed childcare arrangement. However, in many acrimonious cases, the Primary Carer can ‘use the children as weapons’ - to coin a phrase adopted by Sir Nicholas Wall, the President of the Family Division. The children are used as a means of punishing a former partner by restricting contact. Such abhorrent behaviour currently goes unpunished by the family courts, the rational being that to punish the children’s Primary Carer is tantamount to punishing the children themselves. With no effective deterrent, it is likely that such behaviour will continue.

There now exists a plethora of contemporary scientific evidence which demonstrates, beyond all reasonable doubt, the significant emotional, developmental and educational benefits for children of their being permitted to remain in a close and meaningful relationship with both their parents, post separation/divorce. Indeed, fifteen such scientific reports were presented to Sir Nicholas Wall in the case of Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50. Sir Nicholas reserved his judgment for three weeks in order to read this very extensive evidence. He concluded that family laws potentially relegated the harm done to children by irrevocably damaging their meaningful relationship with the Non-Primary Carer.

Mr Cameron - to whose Government the scientific evidence was also presented - understands the need for family law to develop in line with contemporary scientific evidence and the realities of 21st Century parenting. We need only to look at last Summer’s riots to see where fatherlessness can lead.

I am one such Non-Primary Carer. Before separation, I was actively involved in the lives of my two sons. Post separation, I was excluded. Despite numerous court appearances, including three at the Court of Appeal, and despite being found by the courts to be an entirely loving, caring and responsible father, I have lost meaningful contact with my sons. I fought for years in a legal system which simply could not understand and/or give due weight to the importance of a father (or ‘Non-Primary Carer’) in the optimal development of a child.

As I see it, the problem lies in the fact that the judiciary has opted to interpret the Paramountcy Principle of the Children Act of 1989 using the ‘Single Parent-Primary Carer’ paradigm. Relocation law, in the form of Payne v Payne (2001), is a prime example: it rides rough-shod over any possibility of shared parenting by placing thousands of miles and any number of oceans between children and their Non-Primary Carer.

What Mr Cameron seeks to do is to rectify this error by making it very explicit indeed to the judiciary that the full and meaningful involvement of a good and loving father is vitally important in serving the paramount interests of a child. In reality, there is no substantial conflict between the Paramountcy Principle and the Principle of a Presumption of Shared Parenting.

Regards
Bruno D’Itri

For the vast majority of children, spending loads of quality time with the father is absolutely essential. However there are two aspects that worry me about the shared parenting proposals. Firstly they seem to provide a stock answer [ ie shared parenting ] to a hugely differing variety of family circumstances.

Secondly, they seem to ignore the whole principle of the Children Act. It is, quite properly, the children's interests which are held to be the paramount concern. These shared parenting proposals seem to treat children like mere chattels – to be divided equally between the parents -effectively placing the “rights”of parents well above those of the children.

As a lawyer I have many years experience of equality issues. The requirement on employers to justify unequal treatment has provided a sound basis for the Courts to overcome the effects of entrenched discriminatory attitudes; and lead changing attitudes.

As a father I found that the Family Courts viewed with derision my argument that they should start from a presumption of equality when considering my role as a parent. If the Courts have to justify differences in treatment they will apply the parmount consideration of the welfare of the child on a reasoned basis, and not simply assume that the best interests of the child are served by imposing the wishes of the mother.

I was particularly concerned that the Judge took the view that he should ignore a letter from my employer saying that I could work at home for two days a week, because he considered that this did not take into account that there could be a crisis at work. I recall the time when the role of mothers in the work place was limited because there could be a crisis at home.

"These shared parenting proposals seem to treat children like mere chattels"

Family Courts currently treat children like chattels of the mother.