If one of these incompetents mis-reads my file, and decides that I now owe some vast amount of money, and that I am to be banned from driving until I pay up, what can I do about it? Previously, such decisions could only be made by a judge, and I would have had a right of appeal through a judicial process, but Mr Purnell is taking that right away from me, and is leaving me at the mercy of provenly incompetent officials.

And why? What have I done to deserve this? My crime is that I am a father who loved his children, and was unfortunate enough to have a wife who tired of me. In today’s Britain, this is one of the most serious offences anyone can commit.

Since my 3 children were taken from me 8 years ago, I have meticulously paid child support, much as it has galled me to do so. The payments are, after all, not made to my children, but to the person who took my children from me. Nevertheless, I have never missed a payment, but does that make me safe from the draconian powers which Mr Purnell is announcing? No it does not. It should be remembered why the infamous Child Support Agency was closed down. It was not because absent parents were not paying, but because the agency itself was hopelessly and irredeemably incompetent. The CMEC has taken over the staff and the systems of the CSA, and it is these same staff who are now empowered to remove our liberties.

If one of these incompetents mis-reads my file, and decides that I now owe some vast amount of money, and that I am to be banned from driving until I pay up, what can I do about it? Previously, such decisions could only be made by a judge, and I would have had a right of appeal through a judicial process, but Mr Purnell is taking that right away from me, and is leaving me at the mercy of provenly incompetent officials.

And why? What have I done to deserve this? My crime is that I am a father who loved his children, and was unfortunate enough to have a wife who tired of me. In today’s Britain, this is one of the most serious offences anyone can commit.

No-one can deny the link between the absence of fathers and youth crime, but can it be assumed that these fathers simply walk away and want nothing to do with their children?

There is little government funded research in this area, but what information we do have suggests a different explanation. Around 2 in 3 divorces are initiated, not by fathers, but by mothers, and the children remain living with their mothers in 93% of these cases. Encouraged by the government, Family Courts have long taken the view that if the mother does not want the child to see the father any more, then that must be what is best for the child. Consequently, following divorce or separation, 60% of fathers have no further meaningful relationship with their children. So, are these fathers walking away, or are they being pushed out with the state’s encouragement?

Certainly there seems no shortage of overweight parents and grandparents, women as well as men it must be said, who are prepared to don ill-fitting lycra superhero outfits and climb on buildings, in desperate pleas to remain involved in the lives of their children and grand-children.

So why would anyone want to exclude perfectly good parents from their children’s up-bringing? For the answer, look no further than the present cabinet. Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt are on record as questioning whether fathers are necessary at all [4]. It may well be the case, therefore, that it is a narrow ideology within the Labour leadership, shared by no-one with any common sense, which lies behind this frightening rise in lawlessness.

How long will it be before these youngsters stop shooting each other and turn their guns on those responsible for their broken young lives? Now, there’s a thought which should grab the attention of the government.

ENDS

NOTE TO EDITORS

1. The Equal Parenting Alliance is a new UK political party, formed in February 2006. We aim to promote a system of family justice in the UK that puts the needs and interests of children first.

2. We will be fighting at least two seats in the upcoming Scottish parliamentary elections in May this year, and then several seats in the general election in England & Wales.

3. We think the family justice system should respect the right of children to normal parenting by their two parents above the rights or wishes of either of their parents alone. The current system does not do this. To give the most obvious illustration of this; it allows one parent to easily eliminate the other parent from a child’s life, if they wish. We believe this is fundamentally wrong and bad for children.

4. “It cannot therefore be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life, or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social harmony and cohesion.”The Family Way: A New Approach to Policy Making (Social Policy Paper), Coote, A, Hewitt, P. and Harman, H., Institute of Public Policy Research, 1990.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

See our website: www.equalparentingalliance.com

Media Contact : Ray Barry, 0790 550 2856

Such actions have become so familiar over the last 3 years, that no-one need ask what the protest is about; climbing, dressed in comic outfits, has become an icon of disenfranchised fathers. Dads protesting about access to their children and the sense of injustice they feel as a result.

Of course, Stonehenge is a national archaeological treasure which no-one wishes to see put at risk by stunts such as this, but the protest begs one obvious question.

Should we place a higher value on protecting the remnants of a 3000 year old culture (that we know very little about), than on protecting the rights of tens of thousands of children who have a parent needlessly stripped away every year, through no fault of their own?

Politicians find it convenient to distract attention from the failings of their own family policies by demonising fathers, and misrepresenting them as abandoning their responsibilities. Those who work in Family Law also have a vested interest in retaining the status quo, because dealing with the aftermath of family break-up has now become a multi-billion pound industry. It is no wonder that politicians and lawyers sit back and allow the removal of fathers from their families, and then blame them for abandoning their children. As for the rest of the country, few would dispute that these unjust laws are long overdue for radical reform.

We wonder. Will the only relic our society leaves in 3000 years time be a history of cultural breakdown after many years of failed social policies have completely destroyed family life?

It seems we have more respect for a ‘pile of old stones’ than for the emotional welfare of these thousands of forgotten children.

This week-end we heard Harriet Harman, whose own record suggests she is driven by the rights of mothers rather than the welfare of children, telling GMTV on Sunday: “Often it’s two parent families, not just one-parent families, where things are going wrong.” Meanwhile, Alan Johnson, calling on his own experience of being raised by his 15-year-old sister, echoed Harman’s views: “Not all children from married couples fare well and other family structures are not irretrievably doomed to fail.”

One can always find an exception to any rule; some children raised by a single parent will turn out better than some children raised by two parents. What is unforgivable is that the Government should make such exceptions the basis for its policies, and one should not underestimate the harm which these policies have wreaked in our communities: · 1 in 4 children is now completely alienated from one or other parent. · Figures released today by Childline show that in the last year, 6,000 children, some as young as 5, called the help-line exhibiting some form of mental health problem. · Home Office figures, also revealed today (Daily Telegraph), show the number of youngsters being murdered has doubled in the last 8 years, and nearly all of them were killed by other teenagers.

Labour has turned politics into a TV-style game-show, divorced from real consequences. Labour just cannot bring themselves to promote what is best for children. Perhaps we need to ask, as would Anne Robinson: “The strongest link is two parents, while the weakest link is one parent, but will the contestants have noticed this?”

However, Mr Osborne then added the rider, which is almost obligatory these days, that many single mums do a heroic job, and more should be done to pursue absent dads. Single mums come and tell him this, he said, in his surgery. So, does Mr Osborne accept at face value someone who tells him how disreputable her ex-partner is and how heroic she is, with no thought that the ex-partner, who is conveniently absent, might have a different story to tell? If so, Mr Osborne should be a push-over at G7 meetings.

Just as history is written by the winners, the same is true when accounts are told of family breakdown. Given that in 93% of cases it is the mum who wins the children in the family court lottery, it is hardly surprising that the myth has arisen of heroic single mums being abandoned by worthless dads.

Such an important issue as the raising of our children is deserving of more careful analysis. Labour politicians were happy to conceal the defects of the Child Support Agency by blaming absent fathers, trumpeting that two thirds of them did not pay. It was only when investigative campaigners uncovered the true figures, i.e. two thirds of dads did pay, that the government acknowledged their error. Nevertheless, not letting the facts get in the way of a good story, politicians of all colours have continued to blame absent fathers for not supporting their children, when the true fault lay with a Child Support Agency which was, and still is, hopelessly incompetent.

Last week, the government consultation on the review of the CSA ended, with all the indications that the same mistakes will be repeated by whatever replaces the CSA, because lessons have not been learned. The simple truth is that most absent dads do not want to be absent. They are desperate to be allowed to play a full part in raising their children, and feel excluded. However, the CSA has no interest in this – it’s role is simply to collect money.

“Child support” should, surely, be about more than money. Whatever new child support system is put in place, it’s main function should be to ensure that both parents are fully involved in raising their children whether living together or apart. By contrast, the CSA was underpinned by thinking which knew the price of everything, and the value of nothing. Unless this changes, children will continue to be let down by whatever replaces the CSA.

Is bloke-bashing out of place alongside this appeal? Maybe not. For increasing numbers of women, single-parenthood is a career choice, made in the full knowledge that the tax-payer will support them in their chosen life-style, and that their children will look after them. So, if fathers are no longer needed, why not make fun of them?

In launching this appeal, Princess Anne tells the story of a 12-year-old girl, who looks after her 2-year-old disabled sister, as well as her nearly-blind mother. Will charitable donations really help this young girl, or will they rather help to shore up the system which has deprived her of her childhood? The message this appeal sends to young women is that not only will the state support them as single-mums, but so will this new charity as well.

What this 12-year-old girl needs is 2 parents and 4 grandparents, who can look after each other, and leave her free to run and play. She needs this new charity and men-bashing jokes like a fish needs a bicycle.

One detail has escaped much attention, however, if the father is a rapist, or has been violent towards the mother, then the mother will not be forced to name him. This detail reveals the fundamental flaw in the whole debate: that it focuses upon the mother instead of on the child.

The person who benefits from – and owns – a birth certificate is the child, not either of the parents, named or unnamed. To want to know the identity of your closest relatives in the world – your biological parents – is part of human nature, and there can be very few people who wish to be ignorant about the identity of their father.

The idea that anybody, even one’s mother, should be allowed for reasons of her own to prevent one from knowing who their father was, must surely infringe a child’s human right to a family life. Besides, who is to decide the list of crimes on the basis of which the mother will be allowed to conceal the father’s identity from the child? Why is it just rapists and wife-beaters whose children will not know their father? What about the children of mass-murderers, armed robbers, paedophiles, drug-dealers, drunken drivers, or terrorists? It seems odd that if a father has a conviction for slapping his wife once, then his child may never know him, but if the father has a conviction for war crimes which resulted in the deaths of thousands, then that is OK.

If the motive behind the idea is in fact merely to protect the child from harm, by hindering contact with a violent natural parent, then surely a woman who has convictions for murder or child-abuse should have her name omitted from the child’s birth certificate as well?

It is clear that allowing any person to prevent their child from knowing their ancestry, simply because one parent disapproves of the other’s behavior, is impossible to implement fairly or sensibly. Children should have a fundamental right to know who their ancestors are.

The Government needs to realise that a birth certificate is the property of the child, not of the mother.

The jail sentence was opposed by the child’s mother and the children, who were present at the hearing. The mother had told the court that if he was imprisoned she would have to give up her job to look after the children full-time, and she was in tears on hearing the sentence.

The father, Michael Cox, shares care of his three children in an arrangement that has worked well for them for years. But as he cares (and pays) for the children for 50% of the time, he does not see why he should owe child support to the mother, who has them for the other 50%. After all, he pays for them when they are with him, why should he have to pay again when they are with their mother?

The Child ‘Support’ Agency can hardly be claiming to ‘support’ the children having sent a perfectly responsible and caring father to jail, deprived the children of their father against their wishes and reduced the income of both parents. But even so, they still expect a father with equal care of three children to pay 11% of his income to the mother.

But one has to wonder, especially because they share care equally, how can the CSA simply assume that this income will be better spent by the mother than the father? Surely, anything the father earns is just as likely to benefit the children as anything the mother earns?

Indeed, the CSA rules are so mixed up, that even a father who cared for three children for 364 days a year would still have to pay 4% of his income to the mother. But what would this money be for? Why would having children for just one day cost so much?

Of course, this unfair nonsense is just the tip of the iceberg of a completely failed CSA. It’s hardly any wonder the CSA fails both the children it purports to support and the nation’s taxpayers.

With a net cost of £200 million per year, incredibly, even if the entire CSA staff were sent on holiday all year on full pay AND the government simply made all the payments directly to the resident parents THEN the country would still save £200 million pounds in each and every year!

The CSA itself is soon to be replaced by the equally unfit for purpose CSA Mark II (or C-MEC as the government like to call it) which will repeat (and compound) all the mistakes made by the CSA, and add some new ones to boot.

The government fails to realise that, if the CSA has any chance of working, it has to be seen to be fair and not to simply penalise non-resident parents. We need new thinking, not just increased enforcement of an already failed approach. We need a system which encourages shared parenting – and certainly not one which jails parents who practice it.

Our children deserve no less.

Work and Pensions Secretary John Hutton announced this week that the government hopes to alleviate child poverty by encouraging lone parents back to work.

Many parents, for all sorts of reasons, find themselves literally ‘holding the baby’ and coping with bringing up children alone and needing extra support. However, the uncomfortable reality is that many lone parents are only ‘lone’ because they have chosen to eliminate the other parent from a child’s life after they split with their partner.

The vast majority of children of ‘lone-parents’ already have two real parents and very often the ‘other’ parent is ready and willing to play their part in the parenting of the child, but are prevented from doing so by the ‘lone parent’.

Any parent so inclined can do this only too easily without any good reason and unfortunately, instead of preventing this behaviour, our dysfunctional family law system will in fact facilitate it. Even worse, our taxation system positively encourages it. Together, these influences make ‘lone parenthood’ a rational lifestyle choice for those who simply prefer not to deal with the child’s other parent.

Instead of encouraging the choice of lone parenthood as a lifestyle, government policies should encourage the much better alternative for children, where both parents continue to co-operate in the shared care of their children after separation. This is the best chance the children have of keeping away from poverty – and improving their overall life chances – altogether.

Whatever the merits may be of helping lone parents back into work, more children would be saved from poverty if government policies simply encouraged co-operative parenting after separation, rather than rewarding the parents who exclude the other parent.

ENDS

NOTE TO EDITORS

1 The Equal Parenting Alliance is a new UK political party, formed in February 2006. We aim to promote a system of family justice in the UK that puts the needs and interests of children first.

2 We will be fighting at least two seats in the upcoming Scottish parliamentary elections in May this year, and then several seats in the general election in England & Wales.

3 We think the family justice system should respect the right of children to normal parenting by their two parents above the rights or wishes of either of their parents alone. The current system does not do this. To give the most obvious illustration of this; it allows one parent to easily eliminate the other parent from a child’s life, if they wish. We believe this is fundamentally wrong and bad for children.