Co-operative Parenting Consultation

1 Which legislative approach will be most effective in meeting the Government''s stated objectives? Please explain your reasons, including any preference for / objection to particular phrases in the clauses

OPTION 1. This is the very least that Government can do to ensure that children obtain the right by law to have a meaningful relationship with both parents. However, as I understand it, this presumption exists already.

OPTION2. This appears to be watering down what is already in existence.

OPTION 3. There is room for interpretion which could possibly make matters worse.

OPTION 4. Depending upon what is inserted, contact could be reduced or even elimated. The wording is too vague to add anything more specific.


2 Will any of these options change the way that courts apply the principle that the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration? Please explain which one(s) you think might do this and why

I cannot see that any of these options will make much difference. Some standardisation of Judges rulings might be achieved by Option l.

3 Do you think that any of these options will change the court''s final decision in certain cases? Please explain your answer

I don''t envisage much change.


4 Do you think that any of the options proposed give rise to particular risks (other than any you have already mentioned)?

Conflict will continue because the law is not clearly defined.

5 How will this legislation impact on the numbers of separated parents applying for a court order to determine contact arrangements for their child? Please state whether you think there will be an increase in applications, decrease in applications or no change and explain your answer.


Because the new proposals are so vague there is no incentive for parents to work together. I do not think the numbers applying to the Courts will decrease.

6 Do you think this legislation will encourage parents to resolve disputes out of court, either of their own accord or through services such as family mediation?

No if the resident parent wishes to limit or deny contact he/she will continue to do so despite mediation.

7 How can children''s views be taken into account more fully in the court process in a way that is in keeping with the focus on the best interests of the child?

The responsibility for contact should not be placed on the shoulders of children. If opinions are asked for, both parents should be involved in the process, not just the parent with care.


8 What further non-legislative action should Government take to support the objective of encouraging both parents to remain involved in their child''s life after separation?

I don''t feel that Government can do anything further with non-legislative action. Equality in law is the only way of ensuring that both parents remain fully involved in the lives of their children after separation.


9 Do you agree that the courts should have stronger enforcement powers to enforce decisions they make about how much time a child should spend with a parent (contact)? Please explain your answer

Courts should use the powers that they already have.

10 Paragraph 7.3 of the consultation document discusses possible changes to courts'' powers to enforce orders related to contact, to mirror powers already agreed by Parliament for enforcing child maintenance payments. Do you agree with this overall approach

I agree that the penalities for refusing to pay maintence and the penalities for refusing contact should be broadly the same.

11 Which of the specific measures discussed do you think would be most effective in making sure that parents comply with court orders relating to how much time a child should spend with a parent?

The courts should use their powers to arrange different residence arrangements as continual breaking of contact orders will eventually have a detrimental effect on the welfare of the child.

12 a) How do you think the various measures discussed would impact on the child? Please identify any positive and negative impacts

Enforcement of Court orders will ensure that the child has the security of contact by law. This should be the prime consideration of the Court.


12 b) How do you think the various measures discussed would impact on parents? Please identify any positive and negative impacts

When contact orders are enforced both parents will know where they stand in law. This can only be positive for both the parents and the children as it will encourage compliance.



13 Do you think there are any other enforcement options that should be considered? Please explain your answer

I don''t think so.

Thanks Stepper.

We do, however, need more responses of this kind or Wikivorce will not be able to submit a balanced response to the consultation ­base­d on a wide range of views.


The closing date for submissions is the 5th of September which leaves only a very few days for gathering contributions before we write a response which will be published on this site once it is finished

It would be a pity if Wiki couldn''t make a contribution. Maybe the lack of interest is because the Government doesn''t seem to be offering what most dads want.

However, is it an opportunity for interested parties to have their say albeit in a small way.


Posters do not have difficulty in posting their opinions on forums so why not do something positive by taking part in the consultative process.

Don''t procrastinate - participate.

If you don''t wish to publicly post your thoughts on this, hen you are very welcome to send either myself, Forseti or TeamWiki a private message. Alternatively, you can email me - my email address can be found on my profile page.

All submissions will be kept anonymous, there will be no mention of anyone''s user name, and the only names that will appear on the response will be those of the authors.

Having read each of the options not sure what is actually different to what is already in law.

However out of the options 1 is the best because at least it acknowledges a child should have a relationship with both parents. I would have liked this to have gone further and included an statement along the lines that shared residency (not necessary 50/50) would be assumed ....

Options 2/ 3 /4 just get progressively worse.

2 Will any of these options change the way that courts apply the principle that the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration? Please explain which one(s) you think might do this and why

Option 1 will mean everything stays the same whether as the other options seem to be taking a step backward and making it even harder.

Do you think that any of these options will change the court''s final decision in certain cases? Please explain your answer

Cant see it will make any difference. The court will make their decisions but it will still be down to the parents to put their children first.

Do you think that any of the options proposed give rise to particular risks (other than any you have already mentioned)?

options 2 - 4 actually might have the risk of making things worse.

How will this legislation impact on the numbers of separated parents applying for a court order to determine contact arrangements for their child? Please state whether you think there will be an increase in applications, decrease in applications or no change and explain your answer.

Nothing in the changes to make parents realise that its in the best interests of the children for them to have a meaningful relationship with both parents (despite the difficulty with parents relationship.) and that its the responsibility of both parents to work together and that neither can dictate to the other.

Do you think this legislation will encourage parents to resolve disputes out of court, either of their own accord or through services such as family mediation?

NO.

How can children''s views be taken into account more fully in the court process in a way that is in keeping with the focus on the best interests of the child?

not sure how you can achieve this without it seeming the children are put in the middle of the dispute. Possible before a court hearing the family have to attend family mediation

8 What further non-legislative action should Government take to support the ­object­ive of encouraging both parents to remain involved in their child''s life after separation?

Dont know if it can, needs to be a more cultural change.

Do you agree that the courts should have stronger enforcement powers to enforce decisions they make about how much time a child should spend with a parent (contact)? Please explain your answer

Not necessarily and stronger but need to be seen to use the powers quicker. Like any rule when its allowed to bend to much it becomes ineffective.

Paragraph 7.3 of the consultation document discusses possible changes to courts'' powers to enforce orders related to contact, to mirror powers already agreed by Parliament for enforcing child maintenance payments. Do you agree with this overall approach

definitely should be similar to non payment of cm. Although dont know how that would be achieved

Which of the specific measures discussed do you think would be most effective in making sure that parents comply with court orders relating to how much time a child should spend with a parent?

Personally I think the suspension of part of cm until the agreed amount of contact is resumed might encourage more cooperation.

12 a) How do you think the various measures discussed would impact on the child? Please identify any positive and negative impacts

Not sure how these measures will help but children definitely benefit from the security of regular contact with both parents.

12 b) How do you think the various measures discussed would impact on parents? Please identify any positive and negative
impacts

If both the parents realise that they have to work together in the interest of the children and that the court will enforce this contact then hopefully it would mean less conflict situation happening because neither would hold more power over the other parent.

3 Do you think there are any other enforcement options that should be considered? Please explain your answer

As previously stated suspension of cm if contact is in dispute. Statement of arrangements should also have more weighting in law.

I answered a lot of the questions in my earlier posts but as requested here is a more structured response and a few additional points;

1 Which legislative approach will be most effective in meeting the Government''s stated ­object­ives? Please explain your reasons, including any preference for / ­object­ion to particular phrases in the clauses

I cannot see that any of the legislative approaches will meet the Government''s stated objectives.

OPTION 1 - The wording is awkward and hard to understand. There is already well established case law going back some years that a relationship with both parents is usually in the interests of children and Option 1 adds nothing further. There is a risk of misinterpreting "that the welfare of the child concerned will be furthered by involvement in the child''s upbringing of each parent of the child " and raising an expectation of a right to an equality of time and increased litigation which the the Government has said it wants to avoid.

OPTION 2 - "fullest possible involvement" is open to interpretation. Introducing a new competing principle undermines the paramount principle of the welfare of the child.

OPTION 3 - The same position as now and far removed from the Government''s stated objectives. Potential for increased litigation about the definition of "starting point."

OPTION 4 - It''s difficult to measure "best relationship possible" and could be interpreted as meaning most and quantity of the relationship or quality.

2 Will any of these options change the way that courts apply the principle that the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration? Please explain which one(s) you think might do this and why

Options 1 and 2 change the focus on individual children and the principle that their welfare is the paramount consideration in any decision.

3 Do you think that any of these options will change the court''s final decision in certain cases? Please explain your answer

No. None of the options are a significant change.

4 Do you think that any of the options proposed give rise to particular risks (other than any you have already mentioned)?

The Family Justice Review''s recommendation do away with the terms "contact" and "residence" to prevent the sense of winning and loosing will be undermined if less well defined concepts are introduced instead.

5 How will this legislation impact on the numbers of separated parents applying for a court order to determine contact arrangements for their child? Please state whether you think there will be an increase in applications, decrease in applications or no change and explain your answer.

I think there will be an increase in applications because the concepts are open to interpretation and misunderstanding . They will just create fodder for warring parents (or lawyers on their behalf) to argue about.

6 Do you think this legislation will encourage parents to resolve disputes out of court, either of their own accord or through services such as family mediation?

No.

7 How can children''s views be taken into account more fully in the court process in a way that is in keeping with the focus on the best interests of the child?

Children, not parents, should be central to court proceedings. Children come to a view in much the same way as adults by weighing up the pros and cons so they need adequate information in order to express their views. When parents can reach broad agreement children could be made to feel part of the decision process by inviting them to a concluding meeting so they can hear directly from both parents what has been agreed. If judges were trained children could more often be given the opportunity to speak directly to a judge in confidence.

Children''s views and rationale should be evaluated in light of the background and family dynamics. Skilled professionals need to meet children usually more than once to do that effectively. To that end better training and time to carry out evaluations properly is required.

8 What further non-legislative action should Government take to support the ­object­ive of encouraging both parents to remain involved in their child''s life after separation?

Education about the law to avoid misconceptions by parts of the public and some professionals. Emotional and practical support for parents going through separation focusing on the needs of children and strategies for dealing with conflict.

9 Do you agree that the courts should have stronger enforcement powers to enforce decisions they make about how much time a child should spend with a parent (contact)? Please explain your answer

I do not see what stronger enforcement powers could be introduced. The courts already can order unpaid work and financial compensation. Alternatively under contempt proceedings parents can be fined or committed to prison.

10 Paragraph 7.3 of the consultation document discusses possible changes to courts'' powers to enforce orders related to contact, to mirror powers already agreed by Parliament for enforcing child maintenance payments. Do you agree with this overall approach

I agree orders mirroring those for enforcing child maintenance would increase the options available to enforce contact.

11 Which of the specific measures discussed do you think would be most effective in making sure that parents comply with court orders relating to how much time a child should spend with a parent?

When appropriate the ultimate sanction sometimes used already is a change of residence.

12 a) How do you think the various measures discussed would impact on the child? Please identify any positive and negative impacts

In some cases enforcement may send across the message that court orders are not to be ignored so children benefit from regular contact and relationship with both parents. Confiscating passports and driving licences could prevent children enjoying the opportunity to enjoy a holiday abroad with a parent or make it impossible for children to attend school. Not having a licence may lead to the parent with the majority of care being unable to work so there is less money available for the family and lack of money is a major factor in poor outcomes for children of separated parents. Curfews could prevent children doing activities in the evening and a child''s resentment and rejection of the enforcing parent could be the unintended consequence.

12 b) How do you think the various measures discussed would impact on parents? Please identify any positive and negative impacts.

See 12 a)

13 Do you think there are any other enforcement options that should be considered? Please explain your answer

No. There are enough options, the problem is how to use them in a way that does not affect children negatively.

14 Please use this space for any other comments you would like to make

The consultation focuses almost entirely on cases where the parent with care deliberately obstructs the child''s relationship with the other parent. Contact also breaks down because of the behaviour of the other parent, both parents and even the children may be implicated. The consultation paper ignores the fact that enforcement measures introduced in December 2008 were intended to be directed partly against the parent with the minority of care who will not comply and commit to contact arrangements and are rarely, if ever, used even though inconsistent and unreliable contact arrangements have a negative impact on children.

Thanks, Maths and Fiona for your responses.

Does anyone else have anything they wish to add?