Evidence submitted by Women's Aid Federation
of England
1. INTRODUCTION
Women's Aid Federation of England (Women's Aid)
is the national domestic violence charity which co-ordinates and
supports a network of over 270 local organisations in England,
providing nearly 500 refuges, helplines, outreach services and
advice centres. Women's Aid's work is built on 30 years of campaigning
and working in partnership with national and local government,
health authorities, the justice system and voluntary organisations
to promote the need for an integrated approach to prevent domestic
violence and to protect abused women and children.
Local Women's Aid organisations work annually
with thousands of children and mothers who have experienced domestic
violence, and for whom contact problems and post-separation violence
are everyday concerns. Last year these local Women's Aid services
accommodated 23,500 children and supported over 110,000 children.
We welcome the opportunity to submit evidence
to the Select Committee on Parental Contact, particularly as our
national network of services has many concerns about the safety
and well-being of children involved in contact or residence proceedings
with violent parents. It is this knowledge and experience that
informs the concerns and recommendations set out in this paper.
2. IS THE
FAMILY COURT
SYSTEM BEING
RUN EFFECTIVELY
Contact and residence cases involving domestic
violence tend to be the most difficult and intractable cases in
private law family proceedings, frequently involving more than
10 or 15 hearings. As the granting of unsafe contact orders to
abusive parents is a major cause of repeat applications and non-compliance,
Women's Aid considers that the family court system could be run
much more effectively, if measures were taken to ensure that safety
is prioritised in cases of abuse.
Women's Aid believes that the granting of unsafe
contact orders to abusive parents has in many ways helped to fuel
the fathers' rights lobby, because fathers who have been granted
contact orders are understandably angry when their ex-partners
do not comply and the enforcement procedure becomes protracted.
We do not support any woman who refuses to comply with a court
order without good reason. However, when orders for unsupervised
contact or residence are often being granted to violent or abusive
parents, we think there is an urgent need to scrutinise family
court practice.
Women's Aid agrees with the Government, that
"contact arrangements which put the safety of the child or
the resident parent at risk should not be put in place."[6]
However, we do not consider that the safeguards proposed in the
Green Paper are adequate to protect abused women and children.[7]
This is a complex problem involving not only the family justice
system but also statutory and voluntary agencies, so it needs
to be addressed in many different ways.
If contact is going to be safe for children
in cases of abuse, Women's Aid thinks that the following measures
need to be taken:
Ensure that family court professionals
differentiate between cases involving domestic violence and those
which do not and prioritise safety in cases of abuse;
Provide training to enable family
court professionals, including expert witnesses, to understand
the dynamics and risks of domestic violence;
Establish effective procedures for
assessing risk in cases involving allegations of abuse;
Provide funding for specialist assessments
of children involved in private law family proceedings where there
are allegations of abuse and, if necessary, separate representation
so that their voice can be heard;
Make supervised contact available
in every area of the country;
Amend the Children Act 1989 to overrule
case-law precedents which have undermined the welfare principle
and to require the courts to prioritise the safety of the child
in cases involving allegations of abuse.
We provide additional information on these issues
in our response to the third and fourth key areas specified by
the Select Committee.
Here, however, we want to stress that well run
family courts should never lose sight of the need to safeguard
children. To demonstrate why we are so concerned about the issue
of safety, we outline the known risks to children who have experienced
domestic violence and evidence that the family courts are failing
to ensure their protection in private law contact proceedings.
We emphasise the need for a differential approach in contact cases
involving domestic violence, and we also identify the case-law
precedents, which have become such an obstacle to effective court
practice in these cases.
3. THE RISKS
TO CHILDREN
AFFECTED BY
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
AND THE
CONSEQUENCES OF
NOT PROTECTING
THESE CHILDREN
IN FAMILY
PROCEEDINGS
In 2003 the Department of Health stated: "At
least 750,000 children a year witness domestic violence. Nearly
three quarters of children on the "at risk" register
live in households where domestic violence occurs."[8]
Research commissioned by the Department of Health
shows that domestic violence is a major indicator of risk of harm
to children, and that children are often abused physically sexually
or emotionally by the same perpetrator who has abused their mother.[9]
Children whose mothers experience domestic violence also tend
to have the worst outcomes in child protection cases.[10]
Indeed, it is worth noting that research indicates
that domestic violence accounts for about half of all child deaths.[11]
Women's Aid has compiled a list of 29 children (in 13 families)
who have been killed as a result of contact (or in one case residence)
arrangements in England and Wales over the last 10 years. In five
of these cases contact was ordered by the court.[12]
Anonymous details of three of these cases are provided in the
briefing, The need for accountability in the family justice
system. (See Annex).
In 1999 a survey of 130 abused parents found
that out of 148 children who were ordered by the courts to have
contact with a violent parent, 76% were said to have been abused
in the following ways during contact visits:
15% physically assaulted
26% abducted or involved in an abduction
attempt.
Most of these children were under the age of
five.[13]
In 2001 research revealed that children involved
in private law contact proceedings "were highly distressed
(46% had significant levels of emotional and behavioural difficulties).
Levels for children who were interviewed were comparable with
those reported for children subject to child protection proceedings
and nearly twice the level expected in the general child population.
Distress in children was linked to distress in the resident parent
and to domestic violence. For boys, it did not alleviate once
proceedings were over and it remained high for girls"[14]
In 2003 a survey involving 178 refuge organisations
in England and Wales revealed numerous examples of children and
mothers being put in danger or harmed as a result of current family
court practice with regard to child contact and domestic violence.
Here are some of the key findings:
Only 3% of respondents thought that
appropriate measures are now being taken to ensure the safety
of the child and the resident parent in most contact cases involving
domestic violence;
Only 6% believed that children who
do not want contact with a violent parent are being listened to
and taken seriously in most cases.[15]
12% reported cases where contact
orders were granted to parents whose behaviour had caused children
to be placed on the Child Protection Register, and 6% reported
cases where contact orders were granted to Schedule 1 offenders.
This involved a total of 82 children, and 21 of these were ordered
to have unsupervised contact with the known abuser.
20% knew of cases where residence
orders had been granted to abusive parents, often because the
abuser had remained in the family home and could offer "stability."
Respondents knew of 175 women who
had been threatened with sanctions to make them comply with contact
orders. In many of these cases there was evidence of police involvement,
breached injunctions or convictions for violence to the mother
or child. The most common threat used was that residence would
be granted to the abusive parent, and in some cases this is what
happened. (See Appendix 3).
4. THE NEED
FOR A
DIFFERENTIAL APPROACH
TO CASES
OF ABUSE
While promoting contact is essential in most
cases for the well-being of children whose parents have separated,
in cases of domestic violence there is an urgent need to adopt
a differential approach which emphasises the need for contact
to be safe. This means recognising that cases of domestic violence
are fundamentally different from cases where abuse is not an issue,
and that these cases require different remedies. This distinction
needs to be made as a result of initial enquiries and before any
attempt is made to promote family resolution.
Women's Aid supports the approach outlined by
Peter Jaffe, who is renowned for his work on domestic violence
at the Family Court Clinic in London, Ontario. For your information,
we enclose a table setting out his Differential Approaches to
Custody Disputes in the appendix to this document.[16]
(see Appendix 4)
5. THE UNDERMINING
OF THE
WELFARE PRINCIPLE
IN THE
CHILDREN ACT
1989 BY CASE-LAW
PRECEDENTS
Why are children being ordered against their
wishes to have unsupervised contact with abusive parents, when
the Children Act 1989 contains a welfare checklist and states
that the welfare of the child is paramount? When Women's Aid has
raised this issue with solicitors, barristers and judges, often
they have referred to the following rulings in case-law precedents:
That contact is "almost always
in the interests of the child"Re 0 (Contact: Imposition
of conditions)[1995];
That a higher standard of proof than
the simple balance of probabilities should be required in cases
involving more serious allegations (Re H & R (Child sexual
abuse: Standard of Proof) [1995]).
That the welfare of the child is
not paramount in committal proceedings (Re A v N (Committal:
Refusal of Contact)[1996];
It is frequently stated that judges must be
able to exercise their discretion in each individual case, but
the judges appear to be fettering their own discretion as contact
is refused in less than 1% of cases.[17]
Women's Aid believes that this is a direct result of the Re O
judgment. (In this case the father had been given a suspended
sentence for breaching an undertaking not to pester or molest
his ex-partner, but the court focussed on the mother's "unreasonable"
hostility to contact).
It is no coincidence that many of the worst
cases detailed in our recent Failure to Protect report involved
allegations of child sexual abuse. The AMICA survey also made
the bizarre finding that direct contact is slightly more likely
to be ordered in cases involving allegations of physical or sexual
abuse to the child (as opposed to cases involving allegations
of violence to a parent).[18]
(See Appendix 2) Women's Aid regards this is a direct consequence
of the Re H & R judgment, which requires a higher standard
of proof in such cases, even though there will usually be no independent
witness to a crime which is committed in the family home and the
child will often be too young to give evidence. Lord Browne Wilkinson,
who dissented from this ruling, expressed concern that it would
"establish the law in an unworkable form to the detriment
of many children at risk", because child abuse, particularly
child sexual abuse "is notoriously difficult to prove in
a court of law". Unfortunately our experience indicates that
he was right. This judgment makes it much harder to protect those
children who are most at risk ie. those who are involved in cases
where there are "more serious allegations."
It is also not surprising that the family courts
sometimes enforce contact orders against mothers in cases where
fathers have been convicted of violent offences against their
ex-partners[19]as
this is exactly what the Appeal Court did in Re A v N. (This case
was quoted at length in the consultation paper, Making Contact
Work,[20]
without mentioning domestic violence).
Women's Aid hoped that court practice would
improve following the Appeal Court judgment in Re L, V, M &
H [ 2000] with regard to four test cases involving child contact
and domestic violence. However, despite emphasising the need to
minimise any risk of harm to the child, this judgment unfortunately
states that it is no way inconsistent with earlier decisions on
contact. In our opinion, the beneficial effects of this judgment
are also undermined by the House of Lords ruling on the standard
of proof.
Women's Aid does not agree with the Government's
claim that the broad effect of the current law and case-law is
that both parents should continue to have a meaningful relationship
with their children as long as it is safe,[21]
because case-law has undermined the welfare principle in the Children
Act 1989, particularly with regard to private law family proceedings.
In fact, the paramountcy of the welfare of the
child has been weakened to such an extent that the NSPCC recently
commented; "It is striking that some professionals in the
field appear to be under the impression that there isn't a welfare
checklist in private law.[22]
The new safeguards proposed in the Green Paper
on Parental Separation cannot solve this problem, because they
do not overrule these damaging case-law precedents. It is for
this reason that Women's Aid believes that the Children Act 1989
must be amended to require the courts to prioritise the safety
of the child in cases of abuse.
6. DO FAMILY
COURT JUDGES
HAVE SUFFICIENT
POWERS
Women's Aid believes that judges in the family
courts have too much power, because they have discretion to make
whatever order they consider appropriate under the Children Act
1989. Although there is a right of appeal, in practice the wide
discretion given to judges under the Act means that the grounds
for appeal are very narrow. If the judge has considered every
relevant aspect of the case and has not made a mistake in law,
the applicant is likely to be told that another judge might have
made a different decision but there are no grounds for appeal.
This would not matter if the courts always made
orders, which are safe for children and in their best interests.
However, despite the introduction of Good Practice Guidelines
in 2001,[23]
some judges still consider it appropriate to grant orders for
unsupervised contact or residence to abusive parents, even when
there is evidence of violence and every reason to believe that
the child will be at risk.[24]
The failure to take account of the child's safety
in cases of domestic violence has already had tragic consequences[25]
(See Annex). For this reason Women's Aid wants the Government
to consider how family court professionals can be held accountable,
if they knowingly make decisions which place children in danger.[26]
We believe, however, that the best solution
would be to amend the Children Act 1989 to require the courts
to prioritise the safety of the child in cases of abuse. This
would have the additional benefit of helping to reduce non-compliance
with contact orders, as research indicates that concerns about
domestic violence or child abuse feature in 58% of contact enforcement
cases.[27]
Women's Aid does not support any parent who
refuses to comply with a court order without good reason. However,
in our experience many women who have fled from domestic violence
then find themselves in a desperate battle with the family courts
to protect their children from unsafe contact with their abusive
ex-partner. In these cases it is not unusual to have numerous
court hearingswe know of a current case involving 36 hearingsbecause
arrangements usually break down due to continuing violence and
yet the courts grant contact to the perpetrator again and again.
These women are very afraid not only of their ex-partner but also
of the family justice system.
The family courts are not powerless. Women who
do not comply with unsafe contact orders are often warned that
they will be fined, sent to prison or that their children will
be ordered to live with the abusive parentand Women's Aid
is aware of an increasing number of cases where unsupervised contact
is being enforced in these ways despite evidence of violence to
the mother or the child.[28]
Women's Aid recognises that in some cases it
may be helpful for the courts to have the power to order a parent
to attend parenting classes or counselling sessions, but such
measures are unlikely to reduce non-compliance with unsafe contact
orders, as mothers who care about their children will always try
to protect them from harm.
However, Women's Aid would like the courts to
be given new powers to require parents who are alleged to be sexually
abusive to submit to specialist assessments by organisations such
as the Lucy Faithfull Foundation. In non-compliance cases involving
allegations of child sexual abuse hopefully this would end the
dangerous practice of transferring residence to the alleged abuser
without requiring any specialist assessment of that person.
We would also like the courts to have the powers
to:
Ban an applicant from applying for
contact for several years in high risk cases;
Deny legal aid to a parent who has
used family proceedings or contact visits to harass or abuse their
former partner and child(ren);
Order abusive parents to contribute
to the cost of providing supervision;
Refuse or reduce contact, if supervision
cannot be provided for as long as there is an identifiable risk.
7. ISSUES SURROUNDING
DELAYS CAUSED
BY THE
CURRENT SYSTEM
It is important to consider the various reasons
for delays, before deciding whether these delays are justified
and whether they are being handled appropriately. In particular,
Women's Aid would highlight:
The massive increase in private law
contact cases;
The numerous hearings involved in
domestic violence cases, and
The need to carry out adequate assessments
in cases involving abuse.
The Green Paper on Parental Contact acknowledges
that it is best for parents to avoid court proceedings and to
reach agreement informally about contact and residence arrangements
for their children. Yet the Judicial Statistics for England and
Wales show that recently there has been a huge increase in the
number of contact orders being granted:
| 2000 | 2001
| 2002 | 2003 |
Contact orders granted | 46,070
| 55,030 | 61,356 | 67,184
|
Contact orders refused | 1,276
| 713 | 518 | 601[29]
|
| | |
| |
This increase in private law contact cases must be exacerbating
delays in the family courts, but we hope that the "diversionary"
measures outlined in the Green Paper on Parental Separation will
help to reduce the number of contact cases coming to court.
However, Women's Aid is extremely concerned that the pressure
of numbers and the need to deal with cases quickly could result
in domestic violence cases being scheduled for conciliation hearings
or included in Family Resolution Pilots. It is essential that
enough time is allowed for screening and safety checks to ensure
that domestic violence victims are not treated in this way.
The judicial statistics also show an alarming decrease in
the number of cases where contact is refused (now in less than
1% of cases). As domestic violence survivors typically apply for
non-molestation orders after leaving a violent partner, the 601
contact refusals in 2003 are in stark contrast to the 19,112 non-molestation
orders with power of arrest attached, which were granted during
the same period.[30]
If so many adults need protection, why should the courts assume
that their children do not? The low number of contact refusals
is also very worrying when set against an annual figure of about
16,000 contact cases involving domestic violence, where a court
welfare report is ordered.[31]
Our experience leads us to conclude that many abusive parents
are now being granted contact orders without the necessary safeguards
being put in place.[32]
As domestic violence and child abuse are a major reason for
non-compliance with contact orders,[33]
it is not surprising that these cases often involve numerous hearings,
which again contributes to delays in the family court. In our
experience it is not unusual for such cases to involve more than
10 or 15 hearings, and this considerable distress not only to
abused women but also to their children. At our recent Listening
to Children event, one child asked:
"Why do our mums have to go to court so many times about
our dads seeing us? Why can't it be dealt with pretty quick so
we don't have to worry so much?"
Women's Aid knows of one case involving 46 court hearings
over four years where a domestic violence perpetrator with serious
mental health problems was given legal aid to demand contact with
a child who was traumatised by witnessing his violence to her
mother. In this case litigation only stopped when the father committed
suicide. The child, fortunately, was not with him at the time.
This girl did not appreciate the enormous amount of time and money
that the family justice system spent in trying to promote contact
in her case. At our Listening to Children event in June, she asked
a Home Office Minister:
"Why do the courts force children to see their dads
when they are frightened of them?"
It is also important to remember that it takes time to assess
children and their families, especially when there are allegations
of domestic violence or child abuse. Children who have been traumatised
by witnessing violence or experiencing physical or sexual abuse,
could be placed in even greater danger, if the new measures to
promote resolution result in these cases being rushed through
the courts.
At present, if an allegation of child abuse is made during
private law family proceedings, the judge will usually order social
services to investigate the situation and prepare a report under
Section 37 of the Children Act 1989. Often this will involve a
home visit lasting for perhaps an hour and including a private
discussion with the child(ren). In many of these cases young children
do not mention the abuse, the social worker reports that s/he
could find no evidence to substantiate the allegations, and the
court then concludes that there is no reason to refuse contact.
However, the survey involving 178 refuge organisations found
that 83% say that young children usually do not disclose abuse
during a one-off interview with a professional (such as a social
worker, psychiatrist or psychologist). This is because abuse is
a very sensitive issue, and there is no time to build a trusting
relationship with the child.
In these cases specialist assessments are needed, because
it is only by assessing the child in a child-friendly environment
over several weeks that professionals are likely to gain an insight
into how the child views his or her family. To our knowledge,
very few organisations provide specialist assessments of children
involved in private law family proceedings, and those who do (eg
Barnardo's Keeping Children Safe Project in Liverpool) are heavily
oversubscribed. As this service is vital for the protection of
children in cases of abuse, it should be made available throughout
the country. We hope that the new children's trusts and children's
centres will help to make this possible.
Women's Aid would also point out that delay might be very
necessary to protect children and adults who have been seriously
injured or traumatised by abuse.
8. DO PEOPLE
USING THE
FAMILY COURTS
GET THE
SERVICE THEY
DESERVE
Children and parents who have been subjected to domestic
violence need and deserve to be protected by the family courts.
It is crucial to consider the reasons why this often does not
happen at present and to identify ways of addressing these problems.
We have already outlined our concerns about the case-law
and also the need for a differential approach to cases of domestic
violence and for specialist assessments of children. Here we focus
on the need for training on domestic violence, for effective risk
assessment, for more supervised contact centres, and an amendment
to the Children Act 1989 to require the courts to prioritise the
safety of the child in cases of abuse. Finally we include comments
on the family justice system by children who have experienced
domestic violence.
UNDERSTANDING THE
DYNAMICS OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
It is widely acknowledged that domestic violence perpetrators
have an obsessive need to exert power and control over their partners
and also over their children.[34]
The vast majority of domestic violence perpetrators are men,[35]
and the abuse often starts during pregnancy or soon after the
birth of a child.[36]
In our experience perpetrators usually maintain control by seeking
to ensure that their victims are too frightened or too ashamed
to mention the abuse to anyone else or to flee from the family
home. Key tactics include making dire threats, isolating their
partner and their child(ren) from friends and relatives, blaming
them for the violence, and humiliating them so that they lose
any confidence that they will be supported and believed if they
seek help. Women who have been subjected to violent and controlling
behaviour will often return to their abuser several times before
making the final break.
It can be very difficult to provide evidence of domestic
violence, because this usually takes place in the family home
when no independent witness is present. In most cases women and
children will not feel able to disclose abuse until they are in
a place of safety and they are confident that they will be protected.
These mothers are also likely to distrust and avoid social services,
because most women who experience domestic violence say that their
greatest fear is that their children will be taken into care.[37]
(The information sharing databases being set up under the current
Children Bill may help to improve the recording of abusive incidents
and the effects on children so it vital that this information
is made available to CAFCASS (the Children and Family Court Advisory
and Support Service)).
As perpetrators have such a strong need to maintain power
and control over other family members, they are often most dangerous
when they can no longer control the situation eg. when the non-violent
parent has fled from the family home taking the children. Research
shows that women are at greatest risk of homicide at the point
of separation or after leaving a violent partner,[38]
and Home Office homicide statistics for England and Wales show
that on average two women a week are killed by their partners
or ex-partners. The 1996 British Crime Survey states with regard
to domestic assault: "For women, risks were particularly
high for those who were separated from a spouse."[39]
The murder of Georgina McCarthy is a classic example of post-separation
homicide in a case of domestic violence.
We have already outlined the very serious risks to children
who are affected by domestic violence, particularly in the context
of family proceedings (see pages 3 and.
Despite this wealth of information, there are still some
family court professionals who:
believe that allegations of domestic violence
are usually exaggerated;
assume that the violence will stop if the woman
is no longer there to provoke it;
do not believe that anyone would assault a pregnant
woman;
assume that domestic violence is "all about
drugs and alcohol";
decide the violence "can't have been that
bad" if the woman returned to her abuser;
assume that allegations are untrue, if the woman
did not report the violence to a statutory agency before leaving
the family home;
disregard children who say they are frightened
and do not want to see a violent parent;
assume that contact is a "good thing",
even when there is clear evidence of violence and no reason to
believe that the perpetrator has changed.
Any solicitor, CAFCASS officer, expert witness, magistrate
or judge who holds such views with regard to domestic violence
is likely to make decisions which put children and non-violent
parents in danger. For this reason it is vital that all family
court professionals have training to enable them to understand
the dynamics of domestic violence and the associated risks.
With regard to expert witnesses, the survey involving 178
refuge organisations found that only 12% think that psychiatrists
and psychologists have a good understanding of domestic violence,
while 45% say they do not and 44% answered don't know.[40]
As the family justice system deals with so many cases of domestic
violence, this finding suggests that there is an urgent need to
ensure that expert witnesses have appropriate training and experience
to offer advice on such cases.
THE NEED
FOR NATIONAL
RISK ASSESSMENT
PROCEDURES
Although CAFCASS was set up three years ago, it still has
no national policy on risk assessment. We have been told that
a new policy on domestic violence is likely to be introduced soon,
and that a national risk assessment policy will be introduced
in 2005.
In the meantime Women's Aid hopes that CAFCASS and other
agencies with child protection responsibilities will consider
making use of the significant risk indicators and risk assessment
procedures developed by the Cardiff Women's Safety Unit, NSPCC
and the South Wales Police.[41]
The introduction of a mandatory risk assessment checklist
into the Children Act 1989 would also help to improve family court
practice with regard to domestic violence. For example, the risk
assessment checklist in the amended New Zealand Guardianship Act
1968 provides a clear framework not only for welfare reports but
also for any hearing involving allegations of abuse. This legislation
has been in place for the last eight years, and a recent review
concluded that it was effective and should not be changed. (Copy
enclosed with our written evidence, but not available on disk)
In many cases of abuse there will also be a need for specialist
assessments of children, especially if there are conflicting allegations
and no independent witnesses (see page 10).
MAKING SUPERVISED
CONTACT AVAILABLE
THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTRY
The Green Paper on Parental Separation states that judges
have complained about the insufficient provision of supervised
contact centres, but the judicial statistics (quoted on page 9)
suggest that this has not affected their willingness to grant
contact in many cases of domestic violence. Clearly this remains
an urgent problem despite additional funding being provided recently.
CAFCASS's current consultation paper on contact[42]
states that contact centres are used in only 1% of cases. It should
also be noted that the vast majority of contact centres do not
offer individual supervision for high risk cases.
Frequently relatives will be asked to supervise contact visits
involving violent parents but, in the experience of Women's Aid,
this can be dangerous because perpetrators often abuse their relatives
as well. Problems are also likely to arise if the relative believes
that the perpetrator is innocent. In these circumstances there
is not likely to be much protection for the child.
Women's Aid hopes the development of children's centres and
children's trust will provide further opportunities to expand
the provision of supervised contact.
However, we would also point out that the acute shortage
of supervised contact is exacerbated by the granting of contact
orders in very high risk cases (eg Schedule 1 offenders) where
supervision is likely to be needed for much longer. When resources
are so limited, it does not make sense to allocate significant
amounts of supervision time to cases where there is very little
prospect of an abuser changing his or her behaviour.
THE NEED
TO AMEND
THE CHILDREN
ACT 1989 TO
REQUIRE THE
COURTS TO
PRIORITISE SAFETY
The Green Paper on Parental Separation acknowledges that
the implementation of the Good Practice Guidelines on child contact
and domestic violence has been "patchy". However, the
Government believes that the problem of safety will be resolved
in January 2005, when new court application forms will ask questions
about domestic violence and the definition of "harm"
in the Children Act 1989 will be extended to include impairment
suffered due to seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another.
Women's Aid does not believe that these measures will be
sufficient to resolve the serious child protection problems outlined
in our written evidence to the Select Committee, mainly because
they will not overrule the case-law precedents which have undermined
the welfare principle in the Act (see pages 5 and 6). There will
always be problems in deciding whether a child has been "impaired"
by witnessing violence, particularly when young children do not
have the vocabulary to disclose abuse or to express their fears.
Section 120 of the Adoption and Children Act will not safeguard
children who have been physically or sexually abused, and because
of the Re H & R judgment with regard to the standard of proof
these are the children most likely to be denied legal protection
(see pages 5 and 6). We also do not think that new forms designed
to highlight allegations of domestic violence will alter the decision-making
of judges, who see nothing wrong in granting unsupervised contact
in cases where there is clear evidence of violence or abuse (see
the Failure to Protect reportAppendix 3).
Women's Aid considers that the family justice system should
have a clear legal duty to ensure that contact and residence arrangements
are safe for children. We are not seeking a ban on contact in
cases of domestic violence, but we are demanding safety. That
is what children and mothers fleeing from domestic violence need
and deserve.
Having examined various different models, Women's Aid has
concluded that the New Zealand legislation on child contact and
domestic violence offers the most effective and practical means
of tackling this issue. Their legislation includes a mandatory
risk assessment checklist and states that if a parent is found
to be violent within the family the court must not grant unsupervised
contact or residence to that parent unless the court satisfied
that this will be safe for the child.
THE VIEWS
OF CHILDREN
WHO HAVE
EXPERIENCED DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE
When asked what children living with domestic violence need,
children involved in a recent study "were astonishingly clear
and consistent". Most commonly cited was safety, closely
followed by someone to talk to. One or both of these themes featured
in every response to this question.[43]
The need for safety was also emphasised repeatedly during
a Listening to Children event on 16 June 2004 at Portcullis House,
Westminster, which was organised by Women's Aid with the help
of the Ragdoll Foundation. Fifty children and young people attended
this event and put questions to Paul Goggins, the Home Officer
Minister responsible for dealing with the Domestic Violence, Crime
and Victims Bill. This included several very challenging questions
about the family justice system:
My father was given unsupervised access after
I had given my views to CAFCASS of why I didn't feel safe. I was
asked my views and not listened to. They didn't understand my
views, can you do anything to change this for others?
Will the government help my mum and me be safe
from my dad? He beat us and we don't want to see him.
Why aren't we allowed to go to court with our
mums? We may be young but we still have a right to show our own
feelings and wishes.
Why don't the courts make sure it is safe for
mums and children when they know the dads are violent?
Who tells the judge off when he doesn't listen
to the children?
As family court decisions are supposed to be made in the
best interests of children, it is vitally important that the views
of children who are not happy with their experiences of the family
justice system should be taken into accountparticularly
when they relate to the crucial issue of safety.
We enclose three children's drawings which show clearly how
they have been affected by their experiences of domestic violence.
We also hope that members of the Select Committee will have time
to look at the CD enclosed with our evidence, as this contains
10 postcards which were sent by children living in refuges to
the Minister for Children, Young People and Families as part of
our Listening to Children campaign.
CONCLUSION
Women's Aid is aware that the family courts have come under
enormous pressure from the fathers' groups not only to enforce
contact orders more rigorously but also to make a 50:50 division
of the child's time the default arrangement in family proceedings.
As a result of all the publicity on father's rights, political
leaders have made pledges to end the scandal of fathers being
denied contact with their children. We regard this as a very dangerous
situation for mothers and children fleeing from domestic violence,
because their needs are being completely ignored in this debate.
We hope that the Select Committee on Parental Contact will
recognise that there is another side to this story, which has
remained concealed due to the confidentiality rules with regard
to family proceedings involving children. Indeed, within the context
of these Select Committee hearings, we have been told that we
should not talk about individual cases even anonymously but should
focus mainly on providing numerical evidence. Inevitably this
makes it very difficult to convey the fear and distress that many
children and mothers experience as a result of contact and residence
orders being granted to abusive parents. (We hope that members
of the Committee will also have time to look at the Newsnight
video, which includes three statements by mothers, who have suffered
trauma and loss due to contact disputes with their violent ex-partners).
While many of the proposals in the Green Paper on Parental
Separation may be very helpful in cases not involving abuse, we
hope that the Select Committee will bear in mind the need to ensure
that safety is always prioritised in cases of domestic violence.
It is crucial that adequate legal safeguards are provided
before new initiatives are introduced to promote resolution and
to enforce contact more rigorously.
Hilary Saunders
Children's Policy Officer
Women's Aid Federation of England
29 October 2004
Annex
THE NEED
FOR ACCOUNTABILITY
IN THE
FAMILY JUSTICE
SYSTEM
THE FAILURE
TO PROTECT
CHILDREN IN
FAMILY PROCEEDINGS
In recent years children have been abused, neglected, abducted
and even killed as a result of contact orders being granted to
violent parents.[44]
In 2003 a survey involving 178 refuge organisations also reported
numerous child protection concerns relating to private law family
proceedings, including several cases where orders for unsupervised
contact had been granted to Schedule 1 offenders convicted of
offences against children.[45]
Women's Aid Federation of England has compiled a list of
29 children who have been killed over the last 10 years as a result
of contact or residence arrangements in England and Wales. 10
of these children have died in the last two years. As the Government
has not collected statistics on child contact homicides, the actual
number may be higher. The Government has confirmed that in at
least five of the 13 families concerned contact was ordered by
the court.[46]
Due to the strict confidentiality surrounding family proceedings
and the limited information provided, it is not possible to identify
the five cases in which contact was ordered by the court. However,
by requesting information on Serious Case Reviews carried out
by Area Child Protection Committees, Women's Aid has compiled
the following details. We have not named the families concerned
or the relevant local authorities.
In three cases it is clear that not only did the court grant
orders for unsupervised contact or residence to violent fathers
but that these decisions were made against professional advice,
without waiting for professional advice or without seeking professional
advice:
In one case the father was on bail, awaiting trial
for injuring the mother during a violent incident. The executive
summary of the Serious Case Review states that Family Court Welfare
Officers had recommended that the children's contact with their
father should not include overnight stays. In spite of this, the
mother's lawyer "encouraged her to make a compromise"
and the judge "made the decision on contact, contrary to
the recommendations in the Family Court Welfare report."
The children were killed during the first overnight stay. The
local authority confirms that they brought this case to the attention
of the Lord Chancellor's Department. Neither the judge nor the
solicitor was involved in the Serious Case Review. The local authority
states: "We took advice on this from SSI and were advised
it would not be possible."
In another case a judge granted residence of two
children to an extremely violent father without waiting for a
mental health assessment of the father, although the Social Services
report outlined an expectation that the father would receive treatment
for his mental health needs. (He had apparently taken an overdose
recently and declined hospital admission). The court also determined
"detailed direct and indirect contact between each child
and the non-custodial parent". The child, who chose to live
with the mother, was subsequently killed by the father during
an unsupervised contact visit. The father also left a note indicating
that he had intended to kill all three children to take revenge
on his wife for leaving him. The Serious Case Review states that
"with hindsight, it could be argued that the Court should
have waited before making a final decision until all the recommended
reports were placed before them". However, the executive
summary does not contain any recommendations on court practice.
In a third case two children were killed by their
violent father after their mother was reluctantly persuaded to
agree to a contact order by consent. The mother states that she
asked in vain for reports from the police, the GP and a psychiatrist
to be added to the court welfare report. After the children were
killed, a member of her family wrote to inform the judge of what
had happened, and she was appalled to discover subsequently that
his secretary had concealed this letter from him because she was
afraid that he would find it upsetting. No Serious Case Review
was carried out in this case despite previous involvement with
the police and medical services. The mother states: "I cannot
tell you how upset I am that a serious case review was overlooked.
Right from the beginning I felt badly let down by the court system.
(. . . ) Now, I find out that a lot could have been done at the
very beginning to learn lessons. I am absolutely furious and devastated
to realise that not only did the legal team not care about the
children's safety when they were alive, but they don't care that
they are dead. And they don't care about learning lessons."
These cases raise serious concerns about the accountability
of the family justice system, particularly when children are killed
after contact or residence orders have been granted to violent
parents in private law family proceedings.
Recently there have also been major concerns about decisions
made in public law family proceedings. On 19 January 2004, after
the release of three mothers wrongly convicted of murdering their
children due to unreliable diagnoses of Munchausen's syndrome
by proxy, the Solicitor General announced that social services
would review numerous family court cases, in which children had
been removed from their parents following a cot death.
If these serious child protection issues had arisen in any
other area of public life, there would almost certainly have been
a public enquiry with extensive media coverage and professionals
would have been held accountableas happened in the case
of Victoria Climbié. However, these cases have remained
shrouded in secrecy because of the strict confidentiality which
applies in family proceedings involving children.
CHILD CONTACT
AND DOMESTIC
VIOLENCETHE
WIDER CONTEXT
If a child wants to see a violent parent, Women's Aid believes
that contact should be provided so long as the arrangements are
safe for everyone concerned. We do not want to ban contact in
cases of domestic violence, but we are demanding that contact
should be safe.
Various research studies have shown that men who are violent
to their female partners are likely to abuse their children physically,
sexually or emotionally as well[47].
Indeed, this is a major child protection issue, as the Department
of Health has stated: "Nearly three quarters of the children
on the "at risk" register live in households where domestic
violence occurs."[48]
Although judges have complained about insufficient provision
of supervised contact centres[49],
the courts are continuing to grant contact orders in thousands
of domestic violence cases. In 1999 the Association of Chief Officers
of Probation revealed that domestic violence is involved in about
16,000 cases a year, where Section 7 welfare reports are ordered.[50]
However, the Judicial Statistics for 2003 show that contact was
refused in only 601 cases (less than 1% of cases).[51]
We have quoted ACOP's overall figure because this can be compared
with the actual number of cases where contact is refused, but
more recent statistics on contact cases involving domestic violence
are provided in the footnotes.[52]
Despite the introduction of Good Practice Guidelines in 2001,
a survey of 178 refuge organisations in 2003 found that only 3%
think that appropriate measures are now being taken to ensure
the safety of the child and the resident parent in contact cases
involving allegations of abuse.[53]
Women's Aid believes that the failure to protect children
can largely be attributed to damaging case-law precedents in cases
involving allegations of abuse, particularly the Appeal Court
rulings in Re O, 1995 and in Re A v N, 1996 and the House of Lords
ruling in Re H & R, 1995[54].
These judgments exert a powerful influence over decision-making
in private law family proceedings and will continue to do so after
new measures are introduced to improve safety in January 2004.
The Green Paper on Parental Separation states "It is
vitalparticularly if we are to provide for better enforcement
of contact ordersthat issues of domestic violence are fully
and properly dealt with by the courts. Contact arrangements which
put the safety of the child or the resident parent at risk should
not be put in place."[55]
Women's Aid agrees with this principle, but we are concerned that
extending the definition of `significant harm' to include impairment
suffered due to seeing or hearing ill-treatment of another person[56]
will not protect children who have been physically or sexually
abused (and these are the children most likely to be denied protection
due to the Re H & R judgment). Nor is there any reason to
believe that new court application forms identifying cases of
domestic violence will significantly alter the practice of some
judges who consider it appropriate to grant contact orders even
to parents convicted of violent offences against children or against
their former partners.
CONFIDENTIALITY IN
FAMILY PROCEEDINGS
For years it has been a criminal offence and potentially
a contempt of court to publish any material which might identify
a child as being involved in family proceedings, unless the court
permits disclosure.
In the most sensitive and contentious cases the courts can
also make "gagging" orders. A parent who is subject
to a gagging order will typically be forbidden to say anything
about the case until the child reaches the age of 18. Even if
the parent has serious concerns about the child's safety, s/he
cannot discuss the case with contact centre staff or seek help
from the local MP or any advice agency. There is no point in contacting
the media, because the case cannot even be referred to anonymously.
On 19 March 2004 the situation became even more difficult,
when Mr Justice Munby ruled in Re B that publication of any information
about a children case whether or not it would identify the child
is almost always prohibited without the permission of the court.
He also ruled that the term "publication" covers almost
all forms of communication whether by word or in writing.
The Government has now tabled an amendment to the Children
Bill to amend the Administration of Justice Act 1960 so that a
criminal offence will only be committed by publishing material
to the public which is not authorised by Rules of Court. This
move is intended to enable Ministers, MPs and statutory agencies
to fulfil their statutory functions, to facilitate research and
to permit parties involved in family proceedings to seek advice
and support.[57] The
amendment is very welcomebut it does not ensure that in
future the family justice system will be held accountable for
decisions which result in a child being killed.
THE CONSEQUENCES
OF THE
CONFIDENTIALITY RULES
The confidentiality rules are supposed to protect children
from unwanted media attention, but in reality they have prevented
any effective scrutiny of the family justice system by the Government
or by the media.
In recent years Women's Aid has given the Lord Chancellor's
Department (now the Department for Constitutional Affairs) anonymous
details of many cases where abused women and children have been
put in danger because of decisions made in the family courts.
We urged the Government to inspect the court records for these
cases and offered to obtain case numbers, but we were told that
they cannot intervene in cases which are ongoing. (Women's Aid
accepts that the Government cannot intervene in judicial proceedings,
but we wanted them to know what was happening). We offered to
arrange meetings with domestic violence survivors who have experienced
major problems with child contact, but this too was declined.
A parliamentary question about the current outcomes for the children
involved in the Re H & R ruling also could not be answered
on the grounds of confidentiality. Inevitably this means that
the Government and MPs are denied information about what is happening
in the family courts.
Meanwhile anyone wishing to make a formal complaint about
an expert witness in family proceedings first has to seek permission
from the judge and the expert witnessand there is no guarantee
that permission will be granted for all the papers to be scrutinised.
This is the process that a mother wrongly diagnosed as suffering
from Munchausen's syndrome by proxy would have to go through before
being able to make a formal complaint. (There is a connection
here with domestic violence, as a survey of 130 abused parents
in 1999 found that 7% had been accused by their violent ex-partners
of suffering from Munchausen's syndrome by proxy).[58]
The confidentiality rules have also ensured that the current
debate about fathers' rights has been one-sided. This is because
anyone can publicly criticise their former partner for not complying
with a contact order, but it would be contempt of court in any
individual case to say that the court has made an order which
is not safe for the child. This is the dilemma facing many mothers
who have experienced domestic violence and are trying to protect
their children from abuse. The problem of non-compliance with
contact orders is likely to continue until the Government requires
the courts to prioritise the safety of the child in cases involving
allegations of domestic violence or child abuse.
THE WIDE
DISCRETION GIVEN
TO JUDGES
BY THE
CHILDREN ACT
1989
It is frequently claimed that these is no need to amend the
Children Act 1989, because the welfare of the child is paramount,
there is a welfare checklist and there is the right of appeal.
However, because judges have very wide discretion to make whatever
order they consider appropriate under the Children Act, the grounds
for appeal are very narrow. Unless the judge has clearly failed
to consider something that should have been considered or has
made a mistake in law, an applicant is likely to be told that
a different judge may have made a different decision but there
are no grounds for an appeal.
HOW CAN
THE FAMILY
JUSTICE SYSTEM
BE MADE
ACCOUNTABLE
1. The Children Act 1989 should be amended to require
the courts to prioritise the safety of the child in cases involving
allegations of abuse to a child or to a parent. This would provide
stronger grounds for appeal, if a court makes a dangerous decision.
2. A mandatory risk assessment checklist should be introduced
and used in all family proceedings involving allegations of domestic
violence and also in family justice initiatives currently being
proposed in the Green Paper on Parental Separation: Children's
Needs and Parents Responsibilities.
3. The Children's Commissioner should be given the power
of amicus curiae, so that s/he can investigate problems relating
to legal cases and have a role in legal proceedings. (The Children's
Commissioner in Northern Ireland has this power).
4. The Government should implement Clause 122 of the
Adoption and Children Act 2002 without further delay, as this
would require the courts to consider whether a child involved
in private law family proceedings needs separate representation.
5. There should be an urgent review of expert witnesses
to ensure that they have appropriate training and experience to
enable them to provide reliable evidence in cases involving allegations
of domestic violence, child abuse or Munchausen's syndrome by
proxy.
6. Court professionals should be required to monitor
the outcomes of decisions made by the family courts by means of
home visits and also talking to the child in a neutral child-friendly
location.
7. The rules of confidentiality should be amended to
allow the media to report family proceedings anonymously. Women's
Aid believes that this is the only way to restore public confidence
in the family justice system.
The third contact homicide case quoted in this briefing shows
how important it is for the family courts to have access to information
held by statutory agencies. For this reason Women's Aid also recommends
that in the Children Bill CAFCASS should be included in the list
of organisations required to share information about children.
NOTES:
DAMAGING CASE
LAW PRECEDENTS:
In Re O (Contact: Imposition of Conditions)[1995]
the Court of Appeal ruled that contact is "almost always
in the interests of the child". In this case the father had
been given a suspended sentence for breaching an undertaking not
to pester or molest the mother, but the judgment focussed on her
unreasonable hostility to contact.
In Re A v N (Committal: Refusal of Contact) [1997]
the Court of Appeal upheld a decision to commit a mother to prison
for six weeks for failing to comply with a contact order and ruled
that the welfare of the child is not paramount in committal proceedings.
In this case the previous judge "accepted that the father
had a history of violence, including a very serious assault on
his former wife for which he was sent to prison."
In Re H & R (Child sexual abuse: Standard
of proof)[1995] the House of Lords ruled that a higher standard
of proof than the simple balance of probabilities should be required
in cases involving more serious allegations. (This judgment is
particularly damaging in private law cases involving allegations
of child sexual abuse, where the child is too young to give evidence
but may be ordered to have unsupervised contact or residence with
the alleged abuser).
The Appeal Court made many helpful comments in
Re L,V,M & H (Contact: Domestic violence)[2000] but unfortunately
this judgment also states that it is in no way inconsistent with
earlier judgments.
6
Department for Education & Skills et al (2004) Parental
Separation: Children's Needs & Parents' Responsibilities (p
20) Back
7
See Women's Aid Federation of England's response to Parental
Separation: Children's Needs & Parents' Responsibilities Back
8
Department of Health (2003) Into the Mainstream-Strategic Development
of Mental Health Care for Women, p 16 Back
9
Hester, Pearson & Harwin (1999) Making an Impact, Jessica
Kingsley Publications Back
10
Farmer & Owen (1995) Child Protection Practice: Private
Risks & Public Remedies, London, HMSO Back
11
Sinclair, R & Bullock, R (2002) Learning from Past Experience-A
Review of Serious Case Reviews, Department of Health; Brandon,
M & Lewis, A (1996) `Significant harm and children: experiences
of domestic violence', Child & Family Social Work,
I, pp33-42 Back
12
Letter dated 16.6.2002 to Women's Aid from Rosie Winterton, then
Parliamentary Secretary at the Lord Chancellor's Department Back
13
Radford, Sayer & AMICA (1999) Unreasonable Fears? Women's
Aid Federation of England, p. 20 Back
14
Buchanan, Hunt, Bretherton & Bream (2001) Families in Conflict,
Bristol, The Policy Press (quote from executive summary) Back
15
Saunders, H. & Barron, J. (2003) Failure to Protect?
Women's Aid Federation of England, p 5 Back
16
Jaffe, Lemon & Poisson (2003) Child Custody & Domestic
Violence, Sage Publications, p 52 Back
17
Department for Constitutional Affairs (2004) Judicial Statistics
for England & Wales, 2003 Back
18
Radford, Sayer & AMICA (1999) Unreasonable Fears? Women's
Aid Federation of England, (p 17) Back
19
Saunders, H & Barron, J (2003) Failure to Protect?
Women's Aid Federation of England Back
20
Lord Chancellor's Department (2001) Making Contact Work Back
21
Department for Education & Skills, Department for Constitutional
Affairs & Department for Trade & Industry (2004) Parental
Separation: Children's Needs and Parents' Responsibilities,
(paragraph 41) Back
22
NSPCC Review of Legislation Relating to Children in Family
Proceedings-Consultation Draft 10 March 2003 (p 17) Back
23
The Advisory Board on Family Law: Children Act Sub-Committee (2001)
Guidelines for Good Practice on Parental Contact in Cases where
there is Domestic Violence, London, Lord Chancellor's Department
(para. 1.5(b)) Back
24
Saunders, H & Barron, J (2003) Failure to Protect?
Women's Aid Federation of England Back
25
Women's Aid briefing (2004) The Need for Accountability in
the Family Justice System, Radford, Sayer & AMICA (1999)
Unreasonable Fears? Women's Aid Federation of England (p
20) Back
26
Women's Aid briefing (2004) The Need for Accountability in
the Family Justice System Back
27
Rhoades, H (2002) The `No Contact' Mother: Reconstructions of
Motherhood in the Era of the New Father' in International Journal
of Law, Policy and the Family, 16 (2002), 71-94 Back
28
Saunders, H & Barron, J (2003) Failure to Protect?
Women's Aid Federation of England Back
29
Lord Chancellor's Department (2001 etc) Judicial Statistics
for England & Wales, Department for Constitutional Affairs
(2004) Judicial Statistics Annual Report 2003 Back
30
Department for Constitutional Affairs (2004) Judicial Statistics
Annual Report 2003 Back
31
Association of Chief Officers of Probation (1999) Response
to the consultation on Contact between Children and Violent Parents,
(p 5) Back
32
Saunders, H & Barron, J (2003) Failure to Protect?
Women's Aid Federation of England Back
33
Rhoades, H (2002) The `No Contact' Mother: Reconstructions of
Motherhood in the Era of the New Father' in International Journal
of Law, Policy and the Family, 16 (2002), 71-94 Back
34
Pence, E (1985) Coordinated Community Response to Domestic
Assault Cases, Duluth, Minnesota, Domestic Abuse Intervention
Project Back
35
Stanko, E (2000) The Day to Count: A Snapshot of the Impact
of Domestic Violence in the UK, Royal Holloway, University
of London Back
36
McFarlane, J (1991) `Violence during teen pregnancy: health consequences
for mother and child' in Levy, B (ed) Dating Violence: Young Women
in Danger, Seattle, USA, Seal Press Back
37
Abrahams, C (1994) The Hidden Victims, NCH Action for Children Back
38
Wilson & Daly (1992) Homicide, New York, Aldine de
Gruyter Back
39
Mirrlees-Black (1996) British Crime Survey (Research Findings
No 86) Back
40
Saunders, H & Barron, J (2003) Failure to Protect?
Women's Aid Federation of England. (p 31) Back
41
For further information on the full assessment process see www.crarg.org.uk Back
42
CAFCASS (2004) Contact Principles Practice Guidance and Procedures Back
43
Mullender et al (2002) Children's Perspectives on Domestic
Violence, London, Sage Publications (p 107) Back
44
Radford, Sayer & AMICA (1999) Unreasonable Fears? Bristol,
Women's Aid Federation of England. Also letter to Women's Aid
dated 16.6.2002 from Rosie Winterton, Parliamentary Secretary,
Lord Chancellor's Department Back
45
Saunders, H & Barron, J (2003) Failure to Protect?
Bristol, Women's Aid Federation of England Back
46
Letter to Women's Aid dated 16.6.2002 from Rosie Winterton, Parliamentary
Secretary, LCD Back
47
Hester, M, Pearson, C & Harwin, H (1999) Making an Impact,
London, Jessica Kingsley Back
48
Department of Health (2003) Women's Mental Health: Into the Mainstream-Strategic
Development of Mental Health Care for Women (p 16) Back
49
DfES,DCA & DTI (2004) Parental Separation: Children's Needs
and Parents' Responsibilities (p 11) Back
50
Association of Chief Officers of Probation (1999) Response to
the Consultation Paper on Contact, between Children and Violent
Parents (p 5) Back
51
Lord Chancellor's Department (2003) Judicial Statistics for
England & Wales, 2002 Back
52
In 2003 the consultation paper, Safety and Justice, stated that
domestic violence featured in 19% of contact cases according to
an unpublished baseline survey in 2001. In 2002 a survey of 300
family court cases by Napo found that 61% of the fathers and 15%
of mother had allegations of domestic violence made against them,
and this was proved or admitted with regard to 21% of fathers
and 3% of mothers. In 2002 there were 65,192 applications for
contact. In 2003 research for the Department of Constitutional
Affairs by Smart et al found that allegations of domestic violence
were involved in one in four of a sample of 430 family court cases.
In 2003 there were 72,060 applications for contact according to
the Judicial Statistics for England & Wales Back
53
Saunders, H & Barron, J (2003) Failure to Protect? Bristol,
Women's Aid Federation of England Back
54
Details of these three judgments are provided in notes at the
end of this briefing Back
55
DfES, DCA & DTI (2004) Parental Separation: Children's
Needs and Parents' Responsibilities (p 20) Back
56
Section 120 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 which will be
implemented in January Back
57
Department for Education & Skills (October 2004) Briefing
on Disclosure of Material Relating to Family Court Proceedings Back
58
Radford, Sayer & AMICA (1999) Unreasonable Fears? Bristol,
Women's Aid Federation of England Back
|