Evidence submitted by Fathers4Justice
Today Britain is a strange place for decent, committed,
but separated parents:
— Fathers who walk away from their
children are rightly condemned— fathers who act when they
find themselves blocked from continuing to be dads are equally
condemned.
— Fathers are routinely stigmatized
as abusers, yet a mother is twice as likely to kill her child
than a father.
— Fathers are routinely stigmatized
as violent, yet the NSPCC states that 65% of domestic violence
against children is committed by a mother.
— Government says that fathers
are almost always granted contact with their children yet over
half of all contact orders are ignored and courts say that there
is nothing they can do.
— Government rightly seeks to
eradicate family violence BUT refuses to act when a man suffers
the abuse of having his children used as an emotional weapon against
him.
— Government says that there should
not be a legal presumption of contact yet this same presumption
exists in public law children cases.
— Over 40% of mothers admit to
emotionally abusing their child by stopping contact, yet Government
turns a blind-eye.
— Over 40% of fathers lose contact
with their children following parental separation, yet the Government
does nothing.
— Children, who would otherwise
benefit from the love and care of a decent parent, suffer when
one parent denies this.
Yet . . .
Government ignores this harm. It is blind
to the hurt and injury it causes. By ignoring this abuse of children,
Government is an apologist for those that abuse.
Whilst this war of words goes on, 100 children
every day lose contact with a parent, adding to the 250,000 children
who have suffered this fate since Tony Blair came to office.
What a strange place Britain is today when a
decent, loving and caring parent cannot do the one thing that
all decent parents are pre-programmed to do, protect and nurture
his child.
CHILDREN ACT
1989:
Where a child is in the care of a local authority,
the authority shall (subject to the provisions of this section)
allow the child reasonable contact with his parents . . . Where
a child is being looked after by a local authority, the authority
shall, unless it is not reasonably practicable or consistent with
his welfare, endeavour to promote contact between the child and
his parents.
Why, when Public Law protects the parent/child
relationship, does the Government argue that this protection should
not apply in Private Law cases?
FAMILY LAW
ACT 1996 (UN
-ENACTED):
children have the right to know and be cared
for by both parents, regardless of whether their parents are married,
separated, have never married or have never lived together.
The general principle, in the absence of evidence
to the contrary, is that the welfare of the child will be best
served by:
(i) his having regular contact with
those who have parental responsibility for him and with other
members of his family;
(ii) the maintenance of as good a
continuing relationship with his parents as is possible.
Why, when this Act has been passed by Parliament,
do children and parents still not have this protection in law?
EUROPEAN CONVENTION
ON CONTACT
As it is such an important human right, obtaining
and maintaining regular contact between the child and his or her
parents should only be restricted or excluded where necessary
in the best interests of the child.
41. Article 4 paragraph 2 of this Convention
provides that contact may be restricted or excluded only where
necessary in the best interests of the child. Therefore the only
criterion shall be the best interests of the child. However, it
must be beyond any doubt that such restriction or exclusion of
what essentially is a human right is necessary in the best interests
of the child concerned. The appreciation, by judicial authorities,
of the necessity of a possible restriction or even exclusion of
the right provided in Article 4 paragraph 1 shall therefore take
into account the following elements: there shall be no other less
restrictive solution available; the possible restriction or exclusion
shall be proportional; the necessity of the restriction or the
exclusion shall be duly justified. The more the right of contact
is to be restricted, the more serious the reasons for justifying
such restriction must be.
Why, when Europe moves toward greater protection
for the parent/child relationship, does the Government not want
British children and parents to have the same protection?
GORDON BROWN:
Nothing matters more than being a father.
Why doesn't this philosophy permeate Government
policy?
FATHERS4JUSTICE
SUBMISSION
Our submission is brief, at its core is our
Blueprint for Family Law in the 21st Century[59]
a document that sets out the problems of the Family Courts and
potential solutions that would provide for a more equitable, less
adversarial, and, ultimately more successful, family justice system
for private law cases that really puts children first. Our Blueprint
should be considered as the main body of evidence that we submit
to the committee (not printed).
Secondly, we submit the judgement of Mr Justice
Munby in the case of Re D [2004] EWHC 727 Fam and its associated
chronology, which, in so many ways highlights how courts let children
and parents down (not printed).
Lastly, we submit a very small selection of
the thousands of emails received from parents, grandparents and
children who have suffered through the failings of Britain's family
justice (not printed).
In committee or court room it is easy to distance
oneself from what this issue is really about, the love of a child
for her parent and parent for his child. Something that is so
precious, so important and easily tampered with during the emotional
upheaval of parental separation, and something that we at Fathers
4 Justice believe should be protected by law.
Fathers4Justice has a unique insight into the
hurt and harm that occurs when children and parents are split
apart and we respectfully invite the committee to hear verbal
evidence from us.
Gary Burch and Michael Cox
On behalf of Fathers4Justice
31 October 2004
59 Fathers4Justice, Blueprint for Family Law in
the 21st Century: the case for urgent, radical reform, 2004 Back
|
