Courts make parents use children as bargaining tools – report
16 November 2009
140 views
One Comment
A survey of 4000 parents and children from broken families, conducted by the Centre for Social Justice on the 20th anniversary of the Children Act, found that:
* a third of children lost touch permanently with their father
* a tenth of children felt suicidal
* a quarter of children had been asked to lie by one or other parent
Leading Family Lawyer, Sandra Davis, commented “”The adversarial nature of the system invites people to come and use the courts system as a punch up and the children get used as pawns.”
Here is a reminder on what the politicians and the government will send you when you ask why all of this is happening.
Dear Mr Morris,
Thank you for your email dated 16 November about child contact. On this occasion I have been asked to reply.
The Government believes that children benefit from a continuing relationship with both parents following divorce or separation, where it is safe and in the child’s best interests. The Children Act 1989 supports this and, most importantly, it makes the welfare of the child concerned, rather than the rights of the parents, its paramount consideration. While most parents can and do resolve issues about contact and residence following separation or divorce, the court becomes involved if either parent applies for an order for residence or contact. The court has a wide discretion to take account of all the facts and circumstances of each individual case. Decisions are made after the judge has heard and considered all the evidence provided by both parties and any other witnesses, including experts. Both parties are entitled to have their views heard and have the opportunity to respond to any evidence put before the court. If arrangements under a court order do not work out, either parent may, according to the circumstances, apply to the court for the order to be varied, revoked, or enforced.
We do not see any need to change this law, but we do need to change the way parents settle disputes. In particular, we would like to see a reduction in the number of parents resorting to the courts, as this so often results in poorer outcomes for the children and greater dissatisfaction for the parents. Where cases do come before the court, we are promoting extensive use of measures such as mediation and in-court conciliation to divert such cases from a full court hearing. Linked to this, we also want to provide a wider range of levers to ensure the proper implementation of court orders.
I realise there are cases where non-resident parents have difficulty in maintaining contact with their children because of the obstructive behaviour of the parent with whom the children reside. Where contact has been agreed or ordered by the courts, it is essential that it is adhered to. If, at the end of a long and difficult dispute, the contact ordered by the court does not take place, then it has been a waste of time and energy but, more importantly, the child is not benefiting from what the court has decided will promote their welfare. The enforcement of contact orders is a sensitive area. Deliberate refusal to obey any court order is contempt of court that can be punished with a fine or imprisonment. The court also has the power to decide to transfer residence to the other (non-resident) parent if this is considered to be in the child’s best interests.
However, penalties such as fines and imprisonment may not always be appropriate in a child contact case because of the effect that this may have on the children at the centre of the dispute. The Children and Adoption Act 2006 gives courts additional powers to facilitate contact and enforce contact orders. For instance, in addition to the current system of fines and imprisonment, they will be able to refer parents to a counsellor or a parenting programme or make enforcement orders imposing requirements for unpaid work. The courts will also be able to award financial compensation, for example where the cost of a holiday has been lost. These additional levers will be available to the courts in any contact case, if the court considers they would assist resolution. The Government brought the remaining provisions in Part 1 of the Children and Adoption Act (sections 1-5 and
relating to new powers for the courts to order ‘contact activities’ to assist people in resolving contact disputes and new enforcement powers on 8 December 2008.
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) works with parents who have been unable to agree arrangements, to help them resolve their disputes, where it is safe to do so and in the child’s best interests.
The Children and Adoption Act 2006 contains measures for the extension of the maximum duration of Family Assistance Orders from six months to 12 months which were implemented in October 2007. Beyond this, the Government plans to implement additional measures to enforce contact orders, including through the monitoring of court-ordered contact.
Denying a child contact with one of its parents is not usually in the child’s best interests, but it is for the courts to decide whether or not a child has suffered serious harm or is at risk of suffering serious harm, in the circumstances of each case.
Yours sincerely
Emma Hutchinson
Public Communications Unit
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk
Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0097256. To correspond by email with the Department for Children, Schools and Families please contact info@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk.
If you have any further queries why not browse our Popular Questions website. This site has been built to allow you to quickly find the answer to your question http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/popularquestions
Comment on this article
You must be logged in to post a comment.