# Resolving tensions in parenting policy



## grahamg (Oct 18, 2017)

Resolving tensions in parenting policyThe UK Government has given a high priority to parenting in its social cohesion and criminal justice agendas. This review of government policy on parenting, by Clem Henricson of the National Family and Parenting Institute, examines its record.

 Government and parenting assesses current parental rights and responsibilities in relation to financial support, and the physical and emotional care and control of children.It draws out emerging themes and ambiguities and considers how these have arisen in the context of the spread of parenting policy across six Whitehall departments. The author asks whether the different legislation, discussion documents and other government communications about parenting should be brought together in a strategic policy statement.

 Examining precedents in Scotland, Sweden and Finland, she makes the case for a regular policy review, and argues for a national debate as to whether there should be an official statement of parents’ rights and responsibilities (a 'parents' code').SummaryThe UK Government has given a high priority to parenting in its social cohesion and criminal justice agendas. This study, by Clem Henricson of the National Family and Parenting Institute, examines its record.

 She makes the case for a regular policy review, and argues for a national debate as to whether there should be an official statement of parents' rights and responsibilities. Her review findsarenthood is a complex area and ambiguities emerging in parenting policy reflect this. For example:- There is a tension between the state's role in supporting families and the preservation of parental autonomy. - Although there has been some universal support for parents, most policies target disadvantaged individuals and communities. - The UK Government is having to juggle contradictory work-life balance needs. 

It is seeking to provide children with the security of personal attachment while reducing social exclusion by encouraging parents, both partnered and single, into work. - Whilst some policies recognise a range of variables in raising children, others - such as the punishment of parents of truants and parenting orders - imply a blanket obligation on parents to control children's behaviour. - In contrast with approaches to controlling child behaviour, the Government has not tightened definitions of parental responsibility in relation to children's safety, for example in relation to physical punishment and the age at which a child may be left alone. - The UK Government has indicated its support for both 'traditional' and non-traditional family forms. 

The effects for children are its paramount concern, but tensions between changing social mores and tradition may mean emerging law appears to respond to ad hoc pressures rather than being grounded in principle.Overall parents' rights and responsibilities are ill defined. There are no parental rights in relation to the child; this may contravene aspects of the Human Rights Act 1989. Greater clarity is also needed concerning different types of parenthood - genetic parents, resident and non-resident 'social' parents, and adults present in the child's home on a long-term or casual basis.

The researcher suggests that:- a regular, in-depth policy review is required to reconcile disparate strands of policy; - a statement of parental rights and responsibilities in the form of a parents code could enhance relations between government and parents.IntroductionParenting has a high priority in the Government's agenda. Policy development has drawn on precedent and thinking on the role of state intervention in a very private sphere - family life.

 Other policies - such as preventing crime, tackling social exclusion, children's rights, and benefits - have also had an influence, sometimes a conflicting one.These concerns spread across six government departments: drawing them together is difficult. There has been no policy review of family services since Supporting families (1998) and there is no overarching statement on government's expectations of parents or the relative roles of parents and the state in supporting children.

This study examined current parental rights and responsibilities in relation to financial support and the physical and emotional care and control of children. It draws out emerging themes and ambiguities. The researcher also considers whether the different legislation, discussion documents and other government communications should be brought together in a strategic policy statement, with an accompanying 'parents code' to clarify parental rights and responsibilities.

Financial supportRights Financial support permeates the Government's family policy. It has shown a sustained determination to shrink child poverty, for example through Child Benefit, the Children's Tax Credit, the Working Families Tax Credit, Sure Start maternity grants, Education Maintenance Allowances and a range of programmes to support families in kind. Child poverty has been reduced in real terms, but the rise in average incomes means that fewer children have been lifted out of poverty than expected.

 The question emerges as to how far the Government can reduce relative deprivation.A considerable part of the Government's child poverty reduction programme is targeted at disadvantaged individuals and communities. A targeted resource can be less readily viewed as a right than can universal provision. Conditions of receipt also undermine the view of benefits as a right.Responsibilities The Government has emphasised parents' financial responsibility for raising children.

 For example, the requirement that parents pay university fees and the delay in minimum wage protection until a young person reaches 22 extends children's dependency on their parents. Reform of the Child Support Agency has also sought to enforce parents' financial obligations if they separate.The Government has used taxation and benefits reform and the provision of childcare to support and encourage parents, both partnered and single, into work. It has also conducted a campaign to improve work-life balance. This means juggling contradictory needs - providing children with personal security but also reducing social exclusion.Care and controlThe physical and emotional care and control of children lies at the heart of the Government's policies. However, there is a fundamental tension between the state's support of parents and parents' preserving sufficient autonomy to willingly shoulder caring responsibilities.

 A number of recent surveys have revealed parents' anxieties over losing autonomy. Partnerships between state and parent may mitigate these, but are unlikely to fully address them. The Government clearly espouses information as a source of empowerment for parents.Rights Since the war, health (including maternity and paediatric services) and education for children have been universal entitlements and can be classified as a 'right to support' for parents. The Government has made significant additions to these entitlements. For example, post-natal support, health visitors' support of families and Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services are all being extended. Some degree of parental choice of school continues, backed by performance information, offering significant rights of choice and transparency. Parental rights to information and partnership in directing children's education have been enhanced by websites, booklets and parent representation on LEA education committees. 

Other sources of information include the National Family and Parenting Institute's public information services, the Children's Information Service and the helplines - NHS Direct and Parentline Plus.At the same time, services provided directly to children have increased, possibly undermining parental autonomy, for example, expanded personal, social and health education in schools, Connexions' personal development advice, and confidential health and contraception facilities.

But, as with financial support, provision of caring support has been targeted. Taking on board the thrust of the Children Act 1989, the Government has sought to tighten assessment and service delivery systems through the Quality Protects programme and the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need (Department of Health, 2000). Tackling complex difficulties in disadvantaged neighbourhoods has prompted government investment in parenting programmes in urban regeneration areas and in initiatives such as Sure Start, which promotes the development of babies and young children in deprived areas.

However, as noted above, it is doubtful whether targeted provision constitutes a 'right'. The notion of a 'safety net right' is a possibility, but for that every family experiencing disadvantage would have to qualify. Families with children in need supported under the Children Act 1989 might fall within this qualifying category. The targeted provision offered by programmes such as Sure Start, however, is not directly proportionate to individual families' levels of deprivation, but is determined by communities' levels of disadvantage, making it harder to define these as 'safety net rights'.Responsibilities The definition of 'parenting capacity' in the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need perhaps best summarises the Government's expectations of parents' caring duties. It includes the provision of basic care, safety, emotional warmth, stimulation, guidance, boundaries and stability.

 There are also limited statements about parenting responsibilities in school-parent contracts covering education issues such as homework and attendance.Parenting orders, the clampdown on truancy, as well as school contracts, indicate that the Government considers controlling children's behaviour a primary parental duty. There is something of a contradiction between the range of variables seen as impinging on parenting in the Framework, and the more straightforward blaming of parents for failing to control children's behaviour suggested by the punishment of parents of truants and by parenting orders.However, the Government has not tightened the definition of parental responsibility in relation to children's physical safety.

 It has bucked the thrust of policy which supports children's rights, and where necessary curtails parental autonomy, by not removing the defence of 'reasonable chastisement' to a charge of assault of a child by a parent. This is despite a judgement in the European Court of Human Rights which found that such a defence caused the Government to fail in its duty to protect children.Other aspects of physical safety are less controversial, but here too parental responsibility is imprecisely defined.

 For example, parents can be prosecuted for neglect for leaving their children unattended in some circumstances. However, there is no guidance as to the age at which a child might appropriately be left alone.Defining a 'parent'Parents' genderWhile a number of measures, such as paternity leave, support fathers, by and large bringing up children continues to be the role of women. The trends within family services, the criminal justice system and family law reflect this. 

Some recognition of the gender bias of parenting legislation (such as parenting orders, which are predominantly made in respect of women) might be helpful.Family formation The Government has indicated its belief that the traditional two-parent family is the ideal for bringing up children. It is not, however, prescriptive on this issue, for example, producing a booklet on marriage and enhancing civil marriage ceremonies, while also removing married couples' allowance in favour of channelling support to families with children. It allowed a free vote on enabling unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples to adopt, but did not introduce the measure itself.

 Despite precedents in Europe it is hesitating over introducing civil partnership protection for heterosexual cohabiting couples.With the Government having to respond to the counter pulls of shifting social mores and of tradition in this area, the resulting law can appear defensive, responding to demands and pressures rather than grounded in principle.Social and genetic parenting Financial responsibility attaches to the 'genetic' parent whether or not he or she has sufficient bonds with the child to have acquired responsibility as a 'social parent', i.e. a parent with caring responsibilities.

 There is therefore a lack of balance between parental financial duty and any form of entitlement.Presence in the child's home has major implications for child protection responsibilities. In many cases a non-parent adult present in the home, 'social parent' or not (for example, a mother's non-resident boyfriend) will be more open to potential accusations of neglect than a non-resident social parent. The question of presence and absence in relation to who is actually caring for the child requires greater recognition.Parents' rights and childrenWhile parents have some rights to support from the state, they have no rights in respect of the child. 

The provisions of the Children Act 1989 to promote the best interests of the child have eclipsed these. This may contradict the stipulation in the Human Rights Act 1998 of the right to a family life; this offers some recognition of non-resident parents' right to see their children and their right to a say in whether their children should be adopted.ConclusionCurrently parents' rights and responsibilities are ill defined. The researcher suggests two possible complementary approaches to clarifying the position.Policy review The Government's record shows a serious commitment to supporting families, but this is a complex area, rich in tensions and affected by a cornucopia of social and economic relations. 

A regular, in-depth policy review could establish some broad principles and reconcile some of the disparate strands of policy.Parents code A 'parents code' setting out rights and responsibilities has the potential to enhance relations between government and parents, and as such merits a national debate. (The full report goes into the possible nature and structure of such a code in more detail.)Reasons for a code:  Clarity: there is a deficit in clear messages and commonly recognised obligations and entitlements attributable to parenthood.Rights: a code could set out parental rights to support from the state and the parameters of the parent/state partnership in child-rearing.

 Open to scrutiny, a code would provide a framework for as fair a balance as possible to be struck between parents' obligations and entitlements.Transparency: parents have a human right to know the sorts of issues that might prompt intervention with their parenting responsibilities.Proactive approach: a code could offer positively framed messages around expectations of parents.Public attitudes: a code could influence attitudes to parenting, giving parents a more fully recognisable role.Difficulties:The code would need to avoid the pitfalls of over-generalisation in order not to be meaningless on the one hand, and over-detailed stipulations in order to avoid unnecessary statutory prescription about personal relationships on the other.

The limitations of agreed community values about child-rearing would need to be recognised, with a focus on the commonly endorsed essentials of a civilised upbringing.The code would require a definition of different types of parenthood, linked to duties and entitlements.In establishing a set of responsibilities, equity demands some balancing rights, but there is a reluctance amongst policy makers to acknowledge this, particularly in relation to children's rights.

About the projectThis study is intended to act as a think-piece launching the debate on whether a government statement on parenting is needed. The study consisted of a literature review and discussion with an advisory group of leading family policy specialists. In drawing up the proposals for a code, the researcher examined precedents in Scotland, Finland and Sweden. Other sources included: Council of Europe directives; current legislation and guidance; and the Human Rights Act 1998 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989.


----------



## Don M. (Oct 18, 2017)

Raising children is a full time job, and requires active participation by BOTH parents....IMO.  However, in today's world where finances often dictate that both parents work, the children often spend more time in a daycare center or school, than they do with their parents.  Then there is the increasing issue with single mothers, where the father has little or no real contact with the children.  In some societies, there are as many as 70% of the kids being born to, and raised by single mothers...many of those children may not ever know who their father Really is.  This is one of the reasons why we are seeing more and more young people seemingly unable to cope with adult responsibilities as they reach the age where they should be entering society as positive participants.  

Children, when left to their own devices, will usually make the Wrong decisions.


----------



## helenbacque (Oct 18, 2017)

I always wished my children had come with an instruction manual with timely updates.  

Very interesting.  Does the study recommend implementation and to what extent?  IOW, suggestion or rule?


----------



## grahamg (Oct 19, 2017)

*Totally agree*



Don M. said:


> Raising children is a full time job, and requires active participation by BOTH parents....IMO.  However, in today's world where finances often dictate that both parents work, the children often spend more time in a daycare center or school, than they do with their parents.  Then there is the increasing issue with single mothers, where the father has little or no real contact with the children.  In some societies, there are as many as 70% of the kids being born to, and raised by single mothers...many of those children may not ever know who their father Really is.  This is one of the reasons why we are seeing more and more young people seemingly unable to cope with adult responsibilities as they reach the age where they should be entering society as positive participants.
> 
> Children, when left to their own devices, will usually make the Wrong decisions.




Thank you for your comments, which I must say I'm pleased to be able to agree with every word (although I know there are many others refusing to see the problems we believe are being caused by a lack of parental rights perhaps, and say it is nothing other than "progress" bizarrely).


----------



## grahamg (Oct 19, 2017)

helenbacque said:


> I always wished my children had come with an instruction manual with timely updates.
> 
> Very interesting.  Does the study recommend implementation and to what extent?  IOW, suggestion or rule?




I am told that some aspects of the advice given in the paper have been taken up in the UK, and a provision has been brought in whereby as a parent you have a "rebuttable right to_ involvement_" in your child's life.  The word "involvement" can obviously mean absolutely anything, and is a complete sop or fudge as I see it. It is nothing like what I'm seeking which is a "rebuttable presumption in favour of contact for decent parents", so that you may have the same right to contact with your child as is granted to the new boyfriend or girlfriend the custodial parent chooses to move into their home.


----------



## grahamg (Oct 19, 2017)

Another article by the same author, Clem Henricson.

The child and family policy divide


https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/resolving-tensions-parenting-policy



Resolving tensions in parenting policy


Clem Henricson
18th Mar 2003



A review of the different strands of policy-making affecting parenthood and of the tensions between them.

The UK Government has given a high priority to parenting in its social cohesion and criminal justice agendas. This review of government policy on parenting, by Clem Henricson of the National Family and Parenting Institute, examines its record. 

Government and parenting assesses current parental rights and responsibilities in relation to financial support, and the physical and emotional care and control of children.It draws out emerging themes and ambiguities and considers how these have arisen in the context of the spread of parenting policy across six Whitehall departments. 

The author asks whether the different legislation, discussion documents and other government communications about parenting should be brought together in a strategic policy statement. Examining precedents in Scotland, Sweden and Finland, she makes the case for a regular policy review, and argues for a national debate as to whether there should be an official statement of parents’ rights and responsibilities (a 'parents' code').

Summary

The UK Government has given a high priority to parenting in its social cohesion and criminal justice agendas. This study, by Clem Henricson of the National Family and Parenting Institute, examines its record. She makes the case for a regular policy review, and argues for a national debate as to whether there should be an official statement of parents' rights and responsibilities. 
Her review finds: Parenthood is a complex area and ambiguities emerging in parenting policy reflect this. For example:- 


There is a tension between the state's role in supporting families and the preservation of parental autonomy. 


- Although there has been some universal support for parents, most policies target disadvantaged individuals and communities. 
- The UK Government is having to juggle contradictory work-life balance needs. It is seeking to provide children with the security of personal attachment while reducing social exclusion by encouraging parents, both partnered and single, into work. 
- Whilst some policies recognise a range of variables in raising children, others - such as the punishment of parents of truants and parenting orders imply a blanket obligation on parents to control children's behaviour. 
- In contrast with approaches to controlling child behaviour, the Government has not tightened definitions of parental responsibility in relation to children's safety, for example in relation to physical punishment and the age at which a child may be left alone. 
- The UK Government has indicated its support for both 'traditional' and non-traditional family forms. 


The effects for children are its paramount concern, but tensions between changing social mores and tradition may mean emerging law appears to respond to ad hoc pressures rather than being grounded in principle.

Overall parents' rights and responsibilities are ill defined. There are no parental rights in relation to the child; this may contravene aspects of the Human Rights Act 1989. 

Greater clarity is also needed concerning different types of parenthood - genetic parents, resident and non-resident 'social' parents, and adults present in the child's home on a long-term or casual basis.

The researcher suggests that:- a regular, in-depth policy review is required to reconcile disparate strands of policy; - a statement of parental rights and responsibilities in the form of a parents code could enhance relations between government and parents. 

Introduction
Parenting has a high priority in the Government's agenda. Policy development has drawn on precedent and thinking on the role of state intervention in a very private sphere - family life. 

Other policies - such as preventing crime, tackling social exclusion, children's rights, and benefits - have also had an influence, sometimes a conflicting one.These concerns spread across six government departments: drawing them together is difficult. There has been no policy review of family services since Supporting families (1998) and there is no overarching statement on government's expectations of parents or the relative roles of parents and the state in supporting children.


This study examined current parental rights and responsibilities in relation to financial support and the physical and emotional care and control of children. It draws out emerging themes and ambiguities. The researcher also considers whether the different legislation, discussion documents and other government communications should be brought together in a strategic policy statement, with an accompanying 'parents code' to clarify parental rights and responsibilities.


Financial support Rights 

Break

For example, the requirement that parents pay university fees and the delay in minimum wage protection until a young person reaches 22 extends children's dependency on their parents. Reform of the Child Support Agency has also sought to enforce parents' financial obligations if they separate. The Government has used taxation and benefits reform and the provision of childcare to support and encourage parents, both partnered and single, into work. It has also conducted a campaign to improve work-life balance. This means juggling contradictory needs - providing children with personal security but also reducing social exclusion.


Care and control


The physical and emotional care and control of children lies at the heart of the Government's policies. However, there is a fundamental tension between the state's support of parents and parents' preserving sufficient autonomy to willingly shoulder caring responsibilities. 


A number of recent surveys have revealed parents' anxieties over losing autonomy. Partnerships between state and parent may mitigate these, but are unlikely to fully address them. The Government clearly espouses information as a source of empowerment for parents.


Rights 

However, as noted above, it is doubtful whether a targeted provision constitutes a 'right'. The notion of a 'safety net right' is a possibility, but for that every family experiencing disadvantage would have to qualify. Families with children in need supported under the Children Act 1989 might fall within this qualifying category. The targeted provision offered by programmes such as Sure Start, however, is not directly proportionate to individual families' levels of deprivation, but is determined by communities' levels of disadvantage, making it harder to define these as 'safety net rights'.

Break

There is therefore a lack of balance between parental financial duty and any form of entitlement. Presence in the child's home has major implications for child protection responsibilities. In many cases a non-parent adult present in the home, 'social parent' or not (for example, a mother's non-resident boyfriend) will be more open to potential accusations of neglect than a non-resident social parent. The question of presence and absence in relation to who is actually caring for the child requires greater recognition.


Parents' rights and children


While parents have some rights to support from the state, they have no rights in respect of the child. The provisions of the Children Act 1989 to promote the best interests of the child have eclipsed these. This may contradict the stipulation in the Human Rights Act 1998 of the right to a family life; this offers some recognition of non-resident parents' right to see their children and their right to a say in whether their children should be adopted.


Conclusion


Currently parents' rights and responsibilities are ill defined. 


The researcher suggests two possible complementary approaches to clarifying the position.Policy review The Government's record shows a serious commitment to supporting families, but this is a complex area, rich in tensions and affected by a cornucopia of social and economic relations. A regular, in-depth policy review could establish some broad principles and reconcile some of the disparate strands of policy.


Break

The code would require a definition of different types of parenthood, linked to duties and entitlements. In establishing a set of responsibilities, equity demands some balancing rights, but there is a reluctance amongst policy makers to acknowledge this, particularly in relation to children's rights.


About the project


This study is intended to act as a think-piece launching the debate on whether a government statement on parenting is needed. The study consisted of a literature review and discussion with an advisory group of leading family policy specialists. In drawing up the proposals for a code, the researcher examined precedents in Scotland, Finland and Sweden. Other sources included: Council of Europe directives; current legislation and guidance; and the Human Rights Act 1998 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989.


----------



## grahamg (Oct 20, 2017)

Here in the UK this is what you are going to encounter when you seek a "lawyer" to assist you in a family law case nowadays ("Solicitor" is the term used for most classes of lawyers here, if you didn't know):

Alternative Family Law _Children_				Solicitors      

http://www.alternativefamilylaw.co.uk/children/parental-rights-child-welfare/


[h=1]Parental Rights & Child Welfare[/h]In England the concepts of custody, care and control and access were abolished in 1991 and residence and contact orders were abolished in 2014.


The only “right” is now parental responsibility
and the main order the court can make is a child arrangements order about where a child should live and time a child should spend with someone.
The court also has power to make two other types of order:


*prohibited steps orders* and
*specific issue orders*.
A *prohibited steps order* limits certain parental rights and duties, for example an order not to take the child out of England and Wales.
A *specific issue order* provides particular steps someone is to take, for example that the child will go to a certain school or live at a certain address.
You will also need to consider the following:


The Welfare Test 
Non-intervention Principle 
Involvement 
Delay 
[h=3]The Welfare Test[/h]On all such applications the *child’s welfare is paramount* in the court’s consideration. The court will consider in particular the following issues:


the ascertainable *wishes and feelings* of the child concerned (considered in the light of the child’s age and understanding);
the child’s physical, emotional and educational *needs*;
the likely effect on the child of any *change in circumstances*;
the child’s *age*, *sex*, *background*, and any relevant characteristic;
any *harm* which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering;
how *capable* each of the parents and any other relevant person is of meeting the child’s needs;
the range of *powers available to the court*.
In practice judges find it very hard to make decisions on which parent is better at any of these points. Judges are reluctant to make value judgments on parenting altogether. That is why the single most significant factor in most cases is *the present situation* (number 3 in the list), often referred to in Latin as the “*status quo*”. Because of this, it is important to think carefully about letting a new situation arise because the court may then not want to change it.
In addition there are two important *presumptions*, namely:


non-intervention and
involvement by each parent.

[h=3]Non-intervention Principle[/h]The presumption is that the court should not intervene unless it is in the best interests of the child. Therefore the court will only make a formal child arrangements order, or any other order, if there is a dispute, or if it is in the particular interests of the child to make an order nevertheless. So for example if on a divorce the parents agree that the children will live with the mother and spend alternate weekends with the father, the court will not make an order. On the other hand, if a child whose father has died lives with the mother and her new partner, the court may make a child arrangements order to provide that the child should live with both of them to provide the partner with parental responsibility even though there is no dispute.

[h=3]Involvement[/h]Under the Children and Families Act 2014 the law presumes that involvement of a parent in a child’s life will further that child’s welfare. However,


involvement *does not mean any particular division of the child’s time*, but can be any type of involvement and
this only applies to a parent whose involvement in the child’s life does not pose a *risk* to the child on the evidence before the court.

[h=3]Delay[/h]The law also recognises that delay is likely to be harmful to the child’s welfare. Nevertheless, there are delays in listing and in practice in court proceedings it can take six months or longer from an application to a final hearing.

It is always best to try to avoid court proceedings of course because the judge can only make an order. An order does not enforce itself and if someone does not comply with the order or takes a “work-to-rule” approach, matters can continue to be difficult. There will also be issues arising in the future of a child’s life where parents have to work together.
It is of course always best to try to avoid court proceedings because the judge can only make an order, but cannot physically oversee the time a child spends with each parent. An order does not enforce itself and if someone does not comply with the order or takes a “work-to-rule” approach, matters can continue to be difficult. There will also be issues arising in the future of a child’s life where parents have to work together.
Mediation is an inexpensive way to find solutions outside the court system and it is particularly suitable to resolve issues about children. This is why it is compulsory for anyone who wants to make an application to the court for a child arrangements order to attend a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting (MIAM) first (with some exceptions).


----------



## Cap'nSacto (Oct 20, 2017)

I am appalled by the whole thing. I would no more entrust the parenting of children to the government than I entrust them with the care of my aged parents.


----------



## grahamg (Oct 21, 2017)

*Views of someone telling us all everything is fine in the UK family lawe system*



Cap'nSacto said:


> I am appalled by the whole thing. I would no more entrust the parenting of children to the government than I entrust them with the care of my aged parents.




I think I agree with you, if I've understood you correctly, that it is the intrusion into our family lives we are all being forced to accept (once our marriages breakdown, as is happening increasingly often).

Here are the views of someone who would try to persuade us all everything is fine so far as the UK family law system goes, quote:

"_I will attempt to argue that feminism is not conspiring to eliminate parental rights - and, in fact, women's equality has given men more rights over the care of their children if a couple divorce.

 The history of family law has been like a pendulum swinging from the long distant days when women and children were considered the property of the husband, who had the right to deny his ex wife access to her children if she had the temerity to leave the family home to a system where Courts tended to favour mothers in custody cases.
 However, this pendulum has now swung slowly back and has now settled to a more equitable position. In recent years there have been many examples to show that the Courts place just as much priority on a father's position as they do the mother's. The law itself is not written to impose bias, but in the past, decisions in the Family Courts have reflected the gender bias that existed in society.

 There have been assumptions in the past that mothers play the predominant role in their child's lives and, for that reason, a child should not be separated from their mother. However, one could argue that feminism has helped fathers to have a larger role in child's life and given them a better chance of having more access to their children after divorce. Feminism played a large role in changing the assumption of a Mother being the main caregiver - just as gender roles evolved in the workplace, parenting roles have changed - a woman may be the main or equal breadwinner in a family home, just as a man may be the main or equal caregiver. The Courts now recognise this and so does not make decisions based on assumptions that favour the Mother but instead pays attention to the individual needs of the child in each individual situation.

 The standard is not one of mothers against fathers, but instead, what is in the best interest of the child. There is no bias in law, though groups of both mothers and fathers will at some point have felt let down.

 I know of a similar situation to the another forum member described, where the Mother initially had custody of the children and returned them to the Father when she met a new man and moved to a different area. Once she had re-married and established a new home, she wanted the children back. As the parents were unable to reach agreement, it ended with the Court having to make a decision. Both parents were considered good parents and both were able to offer the children a good home, but main custody was granted to the Father because the Court decided it was in the best interests of the children to remain with the Father, rather than have the disruption of moving to a new area.

 It is the responsibility of both Parents to reach decisions about the residence and care of the child, based on the best interests of their child. If they cannot agree on what is in the child's best interests, even with the help of unbiased mediation, I don't see how giving each parent a set of 'parental rights' over the child will help the situation - it's more likely to pull the child in two opposite directions while the parents insist on exercising their rights.
 If Parent A lives in Glasgow and Parent B lives in Cornwall and both parents insist they want the children to live with them or visit every weekend, no amount of equal parental rights is going to resolve this without some compromise.
 If parents can't or won't come to a reasonable decision between them, the only sensible option is for an unbiased third party to decide, based on the best interests of each child in the given circumstances.

 Another important point to consider is that any legislation to confer extra 'parental rights' would apply to all parents, not just the 'OK parents' you have talked of before. The effect of that may mean that, in a case of suspected child abuse, a greater onus of proof and a legal challenge would be needed before the authorities could remove a child to a place of safety, while investigations were ongoing. It sounds like a dangerous road to go down."
_


----------



## grahamg (Oct 25, 2017)

The views of "Fathers 4 Justice" on the UK family law now (for those who don't know Fathers 4 Justice were the campaign group set up around the year 2000, to try to pressure for changes in family law here):

Comment on the government's shared parenting proposals 2012 
http://www.fathers-4-justice.org/about-f4j/fact-sheet/

In June 2012, the government offered four different approaches to ‘strengthen shared parenting’ by amending section 1 of the Children Act 1989 in order to meet the Government’s objectives set out in paragraphs 4.1 to 4.6.
The Government’s weak proposals is a charter for conflict and fatherlessness. Even after 10 years of campaigning, fathers have been deemed so unimportant to children to even merit a single line in a statute assuring their full participation in the lives of their children post-divorce or separation. A Bill which cannot even mention the word ‘father’ has no serious value or meaning.
•Option 1 – Requires the court to work on the presumption that a child’s welfare is likely to be furthered through safe involvement with both parents – unless the evidence shows this not to be safe or in the child’s best interests.
•Option 2 Would require the courts to have regard to a principle that a child’s welfare is likely to be furthered through involvement with both parents
•Option 3 has the effect of a presumption by providing that the court’s starting point in making decisions about children’s care is that a child’s welfare is likely to be furthered through involvement with both parents.
•Option 4 inserts a new subsection immediately after the welfare checklist, setting out an additional factor which the court would need to consider.


Fathers4Justice has rejected the coalition governments proposals on shared parenting for the following reasons:
1.They fall far short of those proposed by the Conservative Party in response to the Green Paper of 2004 and breach the Conservative Party’s pre-election promises made in 2010.
2.The Government refuses even to consider the allocation of parenting time after separation, despite the fact that most family court disputes are about the allocation of parenting time.
3.They retain the offensive presumption that a father represents a potential threat to his children while a mother does not.
4.They will mean nothing without robust enforcement of contact orders.
5.They will do nothing to reduce the likelihood of further litigation.
6.They embody no right in law for parents to see their children.
7.They embody no right in law for grandparents to see their grandchildren.
8.They offer no definition of a “meaningful relationship” between parent and child.
9.There is no concomitant commitment to reform the family justice system, end secret courts and replace them with an open, transparent and accountable system of justice.
10.There is no concomitant reform of the Child Support Agency to ensure both parents are treated equally in the eyes of the law and that benefits are divided equally according to the division of parenting time.
11.They retain the language of gender apartheid and institutionalised discrimination.


----------



## grahamg (Nov 21, 2017)

*Reassurances one shouyldn't trust*



Cap'nSacto said:


> I am appalled by the whole thing. I would no more entrust the parenting of children to the government than I entrust them with the care of my aged parents.
> 
> 
> A.N.Other contributor to discussion wrote:
> ...





There are often assurances given that family law has improved so far as those caught up in it (especially in the UK), but the following extracts from a very long document suggest otherwise:



Grahamg wrote:
 "Here is an irony for you.

 Someone "elsewhere" referred to the fact there was a time when the children (and wife) were treated as more or less the property of the father, back when divorce was very hard for either party to gain, pre WWII.

 However, how similar to an ownership situation do you think this sounds to me, when the following quotes establish our UK family courts view the interests of the mother as being the same as the interests of the child, (when she gains sole custody or residency), hence she can do pretty much as she wishes regardless of the love the other parent might feel for their child, quote:

 "Journal of family law and practise vol 1 number 2 autumn 2010

 [url]www.frburton.com/archive/Issue%202.pdf[/URL] 

 Page 98

 Themes from the reunite Relocation Research Project Marilyn Freeman

 "An unsuccessful challenge was made to Payne v Payne in re G 7 so, in England and Wales, the position remains that the child’s best interests are equated with those of the primary carer parent, usually the mother."

 Page 4

 Relocation – The Continued Search for Common Principles The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Thorpe

 Quote:
 "However the court concluded that the welfare of the children was most likely to be achieved by recognising and supporting the function of the primary carer. This concept was expressed by Sachs LJ in the following passage: “When a marriage breaks up, a situation normally arises when a child of that marriage, instead of being in the joint custody of both parents, must of necessity become one who is the custody of a single parent. Once that position has arisen and the custody is working well, this court should not lightly interfere with such reasonable way of life as is selected by that parent to whom custody has been rightly given.""


----------



## grahamg (Nov 24, 2017)

I hope no one minds but I'm intending to keep chucking in snippets of information regarding family law in the UK in case it triggers someone to respond. 

Here is an excerpt from our "Prime Minister's questions on Wednesday, 22nd November 2017

Divorce and family breakdown take an emotional toll on all those involved, but the family dynamic that is often overlooked is that between ​grandparents and their grandchildren. If access to their grandchildren is removed or blocked, some grandparents call it a form of living bereavement. Will the Prime Minister therefore join me, Dame Esther Rantzen and thousands of grandparents across the country in calling for a change to the law to give grandparents access rights to their grandchildren, as is the case in France? [901989]

 The Prime Minister

 My hon. Friend is absolutely right that grandparents do play an important role in the lives of their grandchildren. We can all, I am sure, sympathise with those who experience the anguish of being prevented from seeing their grandchildren if a parental relationship ends. Of course, when making decisions about a child’s future, the first consideration must be their welfare, but the law already allows family courts to order that a child should spend time with their grandparents. I understand that my hon. Friend has recently seen the Minister of State for Justice, and I am sure that the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Education will consider these points carefully.

 hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-11-22...alAnswersToQuestions


----------



## grahamg (Nov 28, 2017)

grahamg said:


> Here is an excerpt from our "Prime Minister's questions on Wednesday, 22nd November 2017
> 
> Divorce and family breakdown take an emotional toll on all those involved, but the family dynamic that is often overlooked is that between ​grandparents and their grandchildren. If access to their grandchildren is removed or blocked, some grandparents call it a form of living bereavement. Will the Prime Minister therefore join me, Dame Esther Rantzen and thousands of grandparents across the country in calling for a change to the law to give grandparents access rights to their grandchildren, as is the case in France? [901989]
> 
> ...




I intend to try to write to the MP who raised the above question in the UK House of Commons last week and would appreciate any help someone here might wish to give me formulating my arguments supporting the man's campaign as much as possible.

Here are some more extracts taken from Hansard, giving the MPs views:

~[h=2]Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)[/h]


_"I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. She talks about the disruption caused to families by divorce and other family breakdown circumstances. Does she agree that those situations can extend beyond just parents and their children to grandparents? Does she agree that there is a possibility of looking into changing the law so that grandparents have a right to access their grandchildren, and vice versa?"_


----------



## grahamg (Nov 29, 2017)

This is the letter I've just sent - I hope forum members approve of its content and apologies for not waiting for any assistance before sending it:

_
"Dear Sir,_
_I wanted to thank you for raising the issue of grandparents contact with grandchildren a week ago at Prime Minister's questions, asking that changes might be brought in here, so they receive similar rights to those granted in France, under their family law._

_Although I am a grandparent who might benefit from a rebuttable presumption in favour of contact between a grandparent and grandchild, I do not feel I would pursue the issue myself through our family courts. I do however very much wish to see the measure you suggested to our Prime Minister brought in, because during my days campaigning for father's rights, almost twenty years ago I learned about the very difficult position some grandparents find themselves in, following family breakdowns._

_I became quite friendly with the late Jimmy Deuchars and his wife Margaret, who together set up "GrandparentsApart" - a self help group that spread from its beginnings in Scotland as you may know and was supported by none other than Sir Bob Geldof I believe. I attended a meeting organised by the conservative party at Portcullis House when Michael Howard was party leader, and we met Theresa May there, and at the time she held the post of shadow home secretary. I told her that I would like to see Michael Howard ask Prime Minister Blair at PMQs whether he (Mr Blair) could envisage contact between himself and his children not being in their best interests?"  _

_I believe there needs to be a degree of certainty when someone approaches the family court that an order for contact with children/grandchildren will be granted in their favour, as I hope would be achieved by the measure you've sought to be brought in. In my own situation, when my daughter was about three years of age I was told repeatedly by people with legal training or representing me that I would not get less than every other weekend visitation, under the law in force then (back in 1987). Being told that gave me confidence to build a relationship with my child following the break up of my marriage, and I don't think anything less than that degree of certainty would have been enough to work as well as it did. Ten years of regular contact ensued and whatever difficulties arose during that time, my daughter kept telling me "Keep coming daddy", and I think that is evidence enough how much it mattered to her at the time._

_I hope my message gets through to you and supports your cause to some degree, in what I expect will be a difficult endeavour to achieve the changes you seek."_


----------



## JaniceM (Apr 12, 2018)

grahamg said:


> I am told that some aspects of the advice given in the paper have been taken up in the UK, and a provision has been brought in whereby as a parent you have a "rebuttable right to_ involvement_" in your child's life.  The word "involvement" can obviously mean absolutely anything, and is a complete sop or fudge as I see it. It is nothing like what I'm seeking which is a "rebuttable presumption in favour of contact for decent parents", so that you may have the same right to contact with your child as is granted to the new boyfriend or girlfriend the custodial parent chooses to move into their home.



You wouldn't believe- or maybe you would- how many of your posts/threads I read before grasping what you were driving at.. but set that aside for a moment, to address parts of this ^  post:

I don't know what the laws are in your country, but from my POV the ex's 'new boyfriend' is exactly that:  _her boyfriend.  _Meaning, he's nothing to the child.  If at some point they marry, he'd 'officially' be the child's stepparent-  but, unless the child's other parent (guessing that's you) is a total louse (guessing you're not, but it does happen), the stepparent should still take 'second place' to the real parent.  
The reason I decided to comment on this-  both the 'lifestyle' in current locale and similar spreading all around the www:  biological/custodial parents (usually but not always the mothers) giving their 'boyfriends' roles that aren't legitimately theirs, and, at worst, authority that isn't legitimately theirs.  I even noticed a post on a different forum awhile back where a custodial father was planning to move his girlfriend in, and nitwits were telling him he should immediately get his small child to accept the woman as 'her mother.'  Doesn't matter if the real mother was deceased, elsewhere, or in the picture, the guy's girlfriend was _not _the child's mother.  

However, to the other part of your post:  try to imagine a lightly different scenario-  pretend the ex's boyfriend does not exist, the only individuals in the household are the ex and the child.  What changes, if any, do you think would be appropriate?


----------

