[ekm]100x100[ekm].jpg)
« Oh My God This Is A Riot | Main | Archbishop Desmond Tutu Calls For World-Wide Birth Registration Of Children »
February 23, 2005
Family Law Reform In The U. K.
I'm reading the draft Children (Contact) and Adoption Bill (Cm6462). Regarding contact (visitation), both custodial mothers and non-custodial fathers will be given sanctions regarding enforcing contact. Mothers who refuse contact for no good reason may receive community service or curfews. Fathers who do not abide by their contact agreements may pay financial restitution to the mothers. The language is gender-neutral, but it's obvious to whom the bill refers. The bill omits one very important item - domestic violence and child abuse. Mothers who are protecting their children need safeguards so that they won't be penalized for refusing visitation when they have good reason to do so.
Adoption, in particular adoption of children from abroad, is also addressed by this bill.
The home page for the Joint Committee on the Draft Children (Contact) And Adoption Bill is here.
Posted on February 23, 2005 at 10:25 AM | Permalink
Comments
The Labour government are very big on "domestic violence" since the Solicitor General (HArriet Harman (you probably know of her) considers votes from women are to be had in return for extreme laws against men; just as they are supporting the mayor of London (Red Ken Lvingstone) in respect of anti-semitic remarks he made, because they want the moslem vote. Part of the Labour reform is to compel prosecution of the perpretrator of DV, even against the wishes of the victim. In this climate it might be thought that the mother who raises DV allegations only at the child contact stage should need to produce independent proof before being allowed to use this to justify frustrating contact. I appreciate that many victims are afraid of denouncing their persecutor but a line has to be drawn somewhere and it cannot be denied that tactical allegations of DV i n child contact cases have become a problem. The responsibility for this lies with those who have encouraged this. Don't worry though Trish, the current High Court line on child visitation here- from Lord Justice Thorpe, our senior judge, is that if anything to do with the visitation upsets the mom (including her simply being unhappy that dad gets to see the kids) then no visitation will be allowed. This is because he is obliged to discern what is "in the best interests of the children" and to him anything that upsets mom must be passed on to them, and hence it is in their interest that it be prohibited, including contact with dad. He applied this rationale in the recent Argentina move away test where he decided not seeing dad was better for the kids than mom having to remain in the UK where she had lived for 25 years, since the latter would make her unhappy and that was bad for the kids. He missed the obvious point thought that not seeing dad again (in practice) might be worse for them. I'm not going off thread here- I'm just pointing out that such are mom's seeming rights under our higher court system to frustrate all contact with dad on the flimsiest ground, and a DV system heavily skewed towards the woman (rightly or wrongly) one would think it fair to place a burden upon a woman who considered Dv to be applicable to her situation to raise this much earlier than the point at which she was required to abide by a court visitation order; and where this was not done no visitation should be prvented on the grounds of such a complaint without independent evidence.
Posted by: Steve at Feb 23, 2005 11:03:02 AM
Steve: "Don't worry though Trish, the current High Court line on child visitation here- from Lord Justice Thorpe, our senior judge, is that if anything to do with the visitation upsets the mom (including her simply being unhappy that dad gets to see the kids) then no visitation will be allowed."
I really don't think that's the case at all, but I'm glad that domestic violence and child abuse will be taken seriously. I've seen other documentation from the U. K. that says as much, but it wasn't mentioned in that bill. I'm not familiar with the particulars of the relocation case you're talking about, but I have heard of some custodial mothers being permitted to relocate abroad. Others were not. Each case is different.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Feb 23, 2005 11:18:45 AM
Yes- its separate legislation already in force. The most controversial aspect of it is the right of the woman, after acquittal of the man in criminal process, to acquire a stay-away injunction against him from a civil judge (where the matter will be decided on the balance of probabilities rather than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt) with penal consequences: ie a man acquitted by a jury can be then sent to gaol on the basis of a judge's assessment of evidence given in civil court. However well-intentioned the reform might be some of us English are jealous of such things of the right not to be imprisoned without a trial by jury with a criminal standard of proof, so don't think Ms. Harman has any business taking our historical freedoms from us just to attract the female vote. The Argentina case can be located by a quick google of Argentina Thorpe and Gurney. It is (at least) the second time that Thorpe has overruled local judges wh have refused move-aways and since he is the head honcho he is settting a trend which no doubt ambitious junior judges will feel sensible to follow; although the consequences are not good or kids. I appreciate there may be facts in each case that justify the ruling (perhaps the Argentinian woman looked after the kids 100% of the time and the dad had little involvement or interest in them) but I can only comment -as can you- on the information in the press.
Posted by: Steve at Feb 23, 2005 12:25:21 PM
Your country DOES seem to have that problem MORE then some others however Steve...I mean even last year our troops in Iraq had to rescue some kids who had been born in England (English mother) and then kidnapped to Iraq by their Iraq father...
What's up with that...
I mean for 30 years now this has been going on with international abductions.
Clearly I think a little common sense used on the front end in chosing a life partner could save a lot of trouble at the other end, don't you...
I mean is that the fault of the courts that someone married an unstable person with a duo citizenship abroad?
Same with abuse...I mean some of these men have been married or in relationships with 2 or 3 other people...YET they always find some other sucker to take them in AGAIN...
Whose fault is this? Judge Thorpe...
What about pushing this with people over there. Start a group (for both men and women) that encourages better choices for partners instead of having to turn the entire system upside down for (if it's like the US) a small group, no more then 10% of divorcing couples, who can't settle these issues w/o litigation...
Have as your motto "Lock the barn door BEFORE the horse is stolen, not after the fact"...
LOL...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 23, 2005 1:34:17 PM
Yes- there have been a lot of cases involving guys from moslem cultures and the clash between the role/rights of the father in those cultures and the culture here in the west.
And I agree with you that people should get an informed view of the consequences of a split with children involved before they have them with a particular person. Some government money spent in schools educating people on these matters might be a saving in the long run.
However once a couple have children the judges here are supposed to apply the law, not just make it up, and the law states that continued contact with both parents is generally to be promoted. This makes it somewhat incomprehensible that our top judge then trumps this by saying that a "unhappy mom" test he has himself devised should supercede the intention of Parliament (since judges are supposed to apply the law, not make it themselves). SO while a person may have been reckless in having children with someone who turns out to be a wacko, that doesn't mean the court should support the wacko, wich is what you seem to be suggesting.
In conclusion: mediation will only work with sanctions. Without sanctions it will be useless
.
Posted by: Steve at Feb 24, 2005 5:09:13 AM
Common sense in choosing a life partner. That's something of an oxymoron, don't you think?
Posted by: Masculiste at Feb 24, 2005 12:16:50 PM
"SO while a person may have been reckless in having children with someone who turns out to be a wacko, that doesn't mean the court should support the wacko, wich is what you seem to be suggesting."
No...I'm not suggesting that the courts SHOULD support them...
I'm just saying don't be surprised if they do...
I mean you are a small country...obviously if the courts traditionally allowed moveaways for the CP to relocate back to family after a divorce or for a new job, in a small country that is usually not such a big problem as access could still be manageable...BUT if you are going to insist on marrying people who have family in New Zealand, Argentina, duo citizenship in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc., then you KNOW you are going to have problems in the years ahead...it's a given...and that what's most of your moveaway situations seem to consist of...
I mean is your divorce rate like the US, over 50%? Then it's just asking for trouble then to marry someone with these overseas connections...For instance, most courts (at least in the US) allow the NCP or even the CP to bring their children for vacations out of the country to visit family...So, of course, these 'vacations' which Judge grant very regularly, then morph into an abduction where the children are just never returned...
I go back to my point, it's not Judges breaking the laws, but just commonly applying them which is the problem...and you cannot expect everything to be turned upside down just because you married someone from Argentina, for instance, and after divorce she wishes to return to be next to her mother for help with the kids...
That's what I meant...don't look for special accommodations in these situations of your own making NOR should you look for the laws to be changed for maybe the 10% or so of you (if you are like the US) that marry a nutcase who won't let you visit your kids...
We must have laws that address the needs of MOST of us, the people who reside within the vast middle of the bell-shaped curve...not the small groups that exists at either end of it...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 24, 2005 12:52:44 PM
"Mothers who refuse contact for no good reason may receive community service or curfews. Fathers who do not abide by their contact agreements may pay financial restitution to the mothers."
I still think this is unfair...Curfew is a nice word for house arrest meanwhile fathers get to just pay money (and just try to collect it from them)...
Posted by: NY MOM at Feb 24, 2005 12:59:18 PM
"...mediation will only work with sanctions. Without sanctions it will be useless."
The changes recently made were unfair...Mothers get curfews (and how will that be enforced but with electronic tagging) and community service? A curfew is just a nice term for house arrest; as bad as community service where you are frequently forced to work around and with criminals, whereas fathers are charged money...and just try collecting that...the sanctions should have been the same for both...
Totally unfair the whole thing...but I guess now you and the F4J are satisfied...they can hang around the pubs laughing about how they've worked the system once again...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 24, 2005 1:13:41 PM
"Common sense in choosing a life partner. That's something of an oxymoron, don't you think?"
LOL...Well, I hope not, not entirely, Michael. That's why I devoutly hope my son becomes one of those over-thirty, never-married slobs that NYMOM spoke of over at Hugo's, because by then maybe he'll have the good sense and experience to choose a suitable mate. And the same goes for my daughter. When it comes to making smart choices, maturity seems to be the best protection.
Posted by: Anne at Feb 24, 2005 3:59:12 PM
Well sorry Anne, but that's what the statistics showed...I mean by 30 most of the good ones have already been snapped up at least ONCE...
And 30 for men quickly morphs into David Letterman or Stephen Bing, where they are 40 or 50 years old and STILL not sure if they want to get married or have children...Thus BOTH are fathers of out-of-wedlock children, Bing of two...
Don't kill the messenger here...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 24, 2005 8:20:20 PM
Mothers who are protecting their children need safeguards so that they won't be penalized for refusing visitation when they have good reason to do so.
Shouldn't that read "Parents who are protecting their children..."?
Posted by: Riesz Fischer at Feb 24, 2005 9:10:36 PM
"Shouldn't that read "Parents who are protecting their children..."?
Why?
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 25, 2005 12:14:54 AM
nymom- the only moms who will receive any kind of punishment under this legislation are those wh fail to abide by court-ordered visitation orders. So provided they obey the law they have nothing to fear. No-one is gonna be tagged or curfewed for one failure so an emergency "one-off" failuer to honour visitation won't lead to such punishment and meanwhile the concern could be the subject of an emergency court application so as to cover the risk of punishment for future breaches of such orders, which could be amended accordingly if allegations were proven. Your position seems to be "mom knows best" and that is not an uncommon position; furthermore our senior judge seems to have endorsed that in finding any contact that upsets mom should be stopped. Surely you must accept that the courts must be allowed to step in when mom (or dad) is basically refusing visitation for no valid reason .. because it is the child's interests that are to be protectednt not the parent's. Assuming that punishment will only be directed at those who simply refuse contact with no justification tagging/ curfewing must be seen as a fairly mild punishment. As to the separate issue of jailing dads for non-payment of support we have in the UK the CSA which collects for the mother and hence there is not much call for jailing dads for non-payment. We disagree on the issue of punishing "not-involved dads": these guys are still hit with the financial obligation deemed to be representative of the child's needs so no cause to jail for non-financial contribution; as to punishing them for failing the kids emotionally- I see the logic of your argument (if failing to act in CBI is punishable by gaol and dad's involvement is in CBA both he and mom should equally be liable to gaol for failing to meet that benefit)however surely a court would say that it was not in CBI to see dad who doesn't want anything to do with the child, hence then the situations diverge and dad would not be acting in CBI by failing to visit? Clearly in focusing on the party who frustrates contact of the NCP the law is recognising (for once) the natural rights of the parent and there is a punishment for the pain caused to the other party, as much as to the child. I think that is an appropriate are for the law to punish. I really wonder if the law can do anything to make the useless people who reject their kids accept their responsibilities but I think it can and should do something to stop embittered parties using them as weapons.
Posted by: Steve at Feb 25, 2005 10:26:23 AM
Sorry- in my last post I meant to say "the dad would not be acting against (underlined) child's best interest in failing to visit (where he was a parent who didn't want to be involved.)
" By the way- F4J protestors have been acquitted again here by a jury in a "nuisance" action for demonstrating on a building. T.Blair is desperate to stick some of them in gaol as a deterrent but the public are showing sympathy to the protestors. Thats about 4 acquittals now. Your Alabama sex-toy demonstrators could learn a bit from these guys: lets show those beastly legislators that they can't keep the public down!
Posted by: Steve at Feb 25, 2005 10:31:42 AM
"Don't kill the messenger here..."
No disrespect to the messenger intended. Just hope they'll wait, is all.
Posted by: Anne at Feb 25, 2005 11:54:26 AM
We disagree on the issue of punishing "not-involved dads": these guys are still hit with the financial obligation deemed to be representative of the child's needs so no cause to jail for non-financial contribution; as to punishing them for failing the kids emotionally- I see the logic of your argument (if failing to act in CBI is punishable by gaol and dad's involvement is in CBA both he and mom should equally be liable to gaol for failing to meet that benefit)however surely a court would say that it was not in CBI to see dad who doesn't want anything to do with the child, hence then the situations diverge and dad would not be acting in CBI by failing to visit? Clearly in focusing on the party who frustrates contact of the NCP the law is recognising (for once) the natural rights of the parent and there is a punishment for the pain caused to the other party, as much as to the child. I think that is an appropriate are for the law to punish. I really wonder if the law can do anything to make the useless people who reject their kids accept their responsibilities but I think it can and should do something to stop embittered parties using them as weapons."
Well we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
First of all MOST of these dads are a@@holes, not monsters, who have been allowed to get away with fulfilling their obligations as fathers which is why they don't do it...because everyone keeps making excuses for them...
Just as you do...
The bottom line is that MOST of us, fathers as well as mothers, are normal, ordinary, everyday people, we would have to be otherwise there is something seriously wrong with the definition of normal...
Thus, there is no significant harm that will come to most of those children if their fathers are driven out of the pubs and soccer games parks, where they now spending most of their recreational time and are made to visit with their children instead...
AND if they do NOT do this, then they need to be electronically tagged and put on curfew or forced to do community service JUST AS YOU HAVE PLANNED FOR MOTHER TO BE DOING...
It's simple...
Being 'hit' with a financial obligation which MOST mothers will never bother collecting or even be able to even if they wished is NOT as bad as being electronically tagged or made to do community service for breaking the parenting agreement...
So if it's good for one, it's good for the other...
England will be a better place for this as most of these misfits are hanging around pubs and soccer fields probably getting in trouble anyway as opposed to being with their kids or on CURFEW at night...
So sorry, you're wrong, the punishment SHOULD have been the same for both offenders...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 25, 2005 3:26:20 PM
