Take our Survey on Family Law
Equal Parenting Alliance Party
Our Good Reason Principle is that there must be a good reason for delaying or preventing contact between a child and parent. Currently the family courts will accept any reason – no matter how trivial – as adequate to frustrate contact.
Legal Presumption of Reasonable Parenting Time
We call for a legal presumption of reasonable parenting time for children and both parents, in the event of parental separation.
Shared Residence should be ‘Normal’
A Shared Residence arrangement should be the normal arrangement when there are two fit, capable parents; not the rare exception it is now.
Good Reason Principle
All contact and parenting time arrangements will be governed by the Good Reason Principle: they will apply in ALL cases where there is no good reason to do otherwise.
The Early Interventions Project is a template-based model of contact based on a system implemented in Florida. This Labour government tried to implement it, but failed to understand it themselves and made such a hash of it that they ended up opposing their own project!
It is far better if couples can sort things out for themselves before resorting to courts. Requiring all couples to attend mediation would be a step to help more parents do this.
Introduction of Early Interventions Pilot Project
Compulsory Mediation
Mediation to be compulsory for both parents after separation and before entering into the court system. Any parent refusing to attend may be so ordered by the court and on subsequent refusal will be charged with contempt of court.
Open Family Courts
All Family Court cases involving children to be transparent, open and accountable, and all reporting to be anonymised to protect children from publicity.
Enforcement of Court Orders
Court orders for contact, parenting time and shared or joint residence, must be enforced by the courts unless there is good reason to do otherwise..
Allegations in Family Courts Made Under Oath
All allegations of domestic violence or child abuse made by one party against the other during a child contact case, should be made under oath, and dealt with quickly by a criminal court capable of delivering a clear verdict. This is in order to prevent such allegations being made maliciously; and to ensure the safety of the alleged victim and any other children the alleged perpetrator is in contact with.
Treat Maliciously False Allegations as Perjury
Those making maliciously false allegations should face the charge of perjury. All maliciously false allegations made in family court should be prosecuted in a criminal court.
Automatic Parental Responsibility for Both Parents
All fathers, regardless of marital status, or whether they are named on the birth certificate of their natural child, to be given parental responsibility. Where paternity is in doubt, a DNA test must be used to decide the issue.
Parental Responsibility to have Legal Backing
Both parents must have full access to a child’s medical and educational records, and full involvement in school activities regardless of their residence status.
Grandparents given Improved Rights
Grandparents should have a legal right to apply for contact with their grand-children.
Recognition of Parental Alienation
Any parent who deliberately harms a child’s relationship with either parent, without good reason, should be treated as being guilty of emotional and psychological abuse of the child. Furthermore, we call on the government and the authorities to recognise Parental Alienation as emotional abuse of the child.
Family Courts are conducted in total secrecy. While this provides some protection for the child, the secrecy also has many harmful effects.
Currently, PR means little in practice as the law governing how public bodies recognise it is unclear.
We propose to clearly define how a parent with PR must be treated.
Currently, mothers automatically have PR but fathers only get PR if they are married to the mother, or if the mother chooses to name them on the birth certificate.
Immediate Improvement Possible
Improving the Court Process
Courts prefer to ignore the breaking of their own orders. It is up to the non-resident parent to apply to court to enforce an order the court has already made. This means there is little incentive for resident parents to ever comply with an order.
False allegations are routinely used to frustrate contact, a problem rarely – if ever – addressed by the courts. If the courts are ever to ‘put children first’ we believe this practice should be strongly discouraged.
Even when allegations are admitted or shown to be false or malicious, family courts prefer to ignore the harm this has done to the children affected.
We believe family courts should take responsibility for protecting children from emotional abuse, and not protect and encourage the perpetrators.
Shared Residence (where parents share the legal responsibility and care of the child) was the clear intention of the Children Act 1989. This has never been implemented by family courts.
The current effective presumption is that a non-resident parent has no parenting time with a child. We believe normal, fit parents should not have to go to court just to assert the right of their children to enjoy love and care from both parents.
Grandparents play a vital role in the care and upbringing of children, the law should recognise their role and status. Currently grandparents have to ask the court for permission to even seek contact with their grand-children.
We believe that children’s right to have and enjoy a relationship with their grandparents should be protected, just as it should be with their parents.
