Family Justice

The Bill would make changes to family justice, including the law relating to care proceedings, and arrangements for children after divorce or separation.

Key provisions include, but are not limited to:

  • Clause 10 sets out the circumstances in which a mediation information and assessment meeting (MIAM) must be attended before family proceedings can be brought.
  • Clause 11 introduces a presumption that the involvement of both parents in a child’s life will further that child’s welfare, unless the contrary is shown.
  • Clause 13 sets out the circumstances in which expert evidence may be used in court for children proceedings.
  • Clause 14 introduces a 26 week time limit to proceedings for care & supervision orders, with provision for extensions in certain circumstances.

MPs are particularly interested in your comments on the practical implications of specific clauses of the Bill. Please make clear whether your comment relates to a specific clause or schedule.

This forum is now closed.

107 Responses to Family Justice

Linda T says:
February 26, 2013 at 04:58 PM
1. I am a family law barrister with the vast majority of my work relating to public or private law proceedings relating to children. Prior to qualifying as a barrister I was a child protection social worker
2. I support the views put forward by Resolution in respect of the Bill
3. I am concerned that the proposed 26 week timescale will result in decisions being made quickly that are not necessarily in the best interests of children. In my experience quick decisons in public law are likely to be cautious ones ie permanent removal of a child from their birth family. The courts rarely see the difficulties that follow the conclusion of proceedings, how long children wait for adopters, children drifting in long term foster care, the abuse children can suffer in adoptive and foster families.
4. I am concerned that resources are not going to be in place to enable an effective 26 week timetable and in particular consider that the LSC is likely to be the source of delay
LG says:
February 26, 2013 at 04:20 PM
Clause 11
As a grown up child of separated parents I know the importance of having both parents involved in the upbringing of a child, this clearly gives a more balanced upbringing and it is very important that a child has the opportunity for a significant relationship with both parents, because both parents matter to children.

Of course there will be exceptional cases when one or both parents present a risk to children and this is the job of Social Services, Cafcass and the judiciary to determine these exceptional cases, but the default starting position for all children of separated parents should be that a child has the opportunity to spend approximately equal time with both parents. Of course the circumstances of each individual case will be different, and this will mean the outcomes will normally be different to the starting point but the starting point should recognise the children's rights to a significant relationship with both parents.

No parent should be able to attempt to freeze out the other parent, and the courts should act robustly to protect the children's rights when any parent attempts this. The lack of enforcement orders made by the family courts clearly shows that this does not happen.

If you warn a child that there are consequences if the child breaks ground rules, and the child then breaks them yet the consequences are not carried out; the child learns that they can do as they please.

Equally if you warn a parent that there are consequences if the parent breaks the ground rules set down in a court order, and the parent then breaches the court order yet the consequences are not carried out; the parent learns that they can do as they please and the warning is ineffective.

It is important to educate separating parents to show them that generally the outcomes are better for children's educational achievement, social relationships and overall life "success" when both parents are significantly involved in a child's upbringing.

Too many children are growing up without the involvement, the love and the guidance of both parents in their life. This greatly impacts on the innocent and vulnerable children and also on our society in general because of the frequency of family separation.
Russ M says:
February 26, 2013 at 04:06 PM
There is a real issue with what is happening on the ground, Social Workers and other officials including 'Expert' are using unfounded information as evidence, this includes false allegations and information that has not been investigated or validated in any way, yet this is put before a court, Parents have complained about their solicitors, even with good evidence the Legal Ombudsman says the solicitor has acted reasonably in the circumstance, nothing can be further from the truth, even when a judge tells a Social Work tean 'leave this family alone, your causing more damage than good' they ignore this advice and trigger another disaster. One parent made numerous complaints to Social Services about their lack of communication and investigation skills only to be ignored, during the 2nd reading MP's played down the issue of the courts being bias against families and in divorce cases bias against generally the father and in both cases the Grandparents-this is not a myth, it is true, there is serious bias in the system, resulting in children being wrongly placed in a failing care system and many forced into adoption on the most absurd evidence. The probleem is at ground level, speeding up adoption will only make matters worse. The working practices of Social Services need investigating and a reforming. There is no funding for family support at all, yet it seems all the funding is aimed at adoption agencies who are in competition with each other, this is simply wrong, children have become a commodity, their wishes and feelings are ignored and denied, while their innocence continues to be exploited. The government need to recognise the real issues here and listen to its people and other countries who are shouting from the roof tops about the UK Family Justice system. There is systemic wrong doing that in many cases is being ignored and covered up at all levels, there is evidence of this, but again this is ignored. If there is to be a crusade, then it should be for transparency and justice. Please listen to the parents, birth parents, grandparents and families, the best place for any child is with its family not the state. Families need your support.
LD says:
February 26, 2013 at 03:43 PM
Further to my previous comment and having read some apparently sensible comments against Clause 11, the problem with the current system is that it allows the resident parent (normally the mother) far too much influence over the child's relationship with the other parent (father) often leaving the child as a bargaining chip or means of revenge. Even otherwise loving and well-educated mothers are able, nay encouraged to adopt hostile strategies by a legal system that assumes a partisan role and benefits from conflict, not resolution. Parental rights aside, until equality is established children will continue to be abused in this cruel way. We rightly expect fathers to contribute financially to their children's future, but society urgently needs them to be enabled to participate in their emotional and social upbringing. The assumption of equality is both a necessary principle and a practical means by which the needs of children, not the resident parent, can be put first.
Leon D says:
February 26, 2013 at 03:11 PM
I very much hope that Parliament will see the wisdom in Clause 11, that both parents should be equally represented in a child's life unless there is very good reason otherwise. Both as a child from an unfair separation between my parents and now as a father experiencing access restrictions damaging to my own children, I'm acutely aware of how urgently this needs to be corrected. In an age of increasingly fatherless families, now more than ever we need both parents to enable stable, secure, healthy and happy futures for our children.
Cathy Ashley (CE Family Rights Group) says:
February 26, 2013 at 01:26 PM
Family Rights Group is the charity in England and Wales that advises over 8000 families a year whose children are involved with, or require, local authority children’s services because of welfare needs or concerns. We promote policies and practices, including family group conferences, that help children to be raised safely and securely within their families, and give families a voice when decisions are made about their lives. We also campaign for effective support to assist family and friends carers, including grandparents who are raising children that cannot live at home.

Clause 14 (reducing timeframe for care proceedings to 26 weeks)

Whilst supporting the need for decisions to be taken within the child’s timescales and to avoid unnecessary delay, we concerned that the proposed 26 week time limit on care proceedings cases will severely reduce the time available for parents to demonstrate their parenting abilities and will squeeze out potential family carers from being considered by the court because there will simply not be enough time to consider their application (and support needs) before the proceedings are concluded. We want to see reforms:
- to allow flexibility within the court timetabling to enable consideration of potential placements which are consistent with the child’s welfare; and
- which place a new duty on the local authority to work with families before care proceedings start (see our comment regarding the clauses related to adoption and looked after children). This will help to reduce the numbers of family members only coming forward once proceedings are underway.

Clause 15 (reducing court scrutiny of care plans)

Clause 15 of the Bill requires the court to consider only the ‘permanence’ aspects of the care plan and contact, rather than the whole of the child’s care plan, before making a care order. However the ‘permanent provisions’ do not include arrangements for the child to be placed with their siblings where possible. We want to see the definition of permanent provisions changed to include sibling placements.

D R says:
February 26, 2013 at 12:43 PM
Referring to Clause 11 and my own personal circumstances:

1) Since my ex wife left me we spent years going in and out of court with me trying to get some access to my son. I jumped through hoops for years making sure I did what was required of me and spent thousands on court/solicitors fees. In the end I had a court order stating my ex wife had to let me have contact with my son. This has continually been broken since it was introduced and now I have not seen my son for over 12 months. I could go back to court but the costs are beyond what I can afford. There is no help or support for me.

2) Recently I found out I had a son I did not know of. In the beginning I was allowed contact on a weekly basis. However contact was then stopped for no reason. I have now not seen this child for 10 months.

HOWEVER for both children the law of the land says I MUST pay for my children through the CSA, which I do. SO the law of the land states I have to pay for my children BUT I have no rights in terms of having contact with them. I am financially crippled due to children I want to see, but I am not allowed to see due to the actions of their mothers. At no point does the law of the land consider the children I have living at home with me.

To me this seems ridiculous.

I want to see my boys but I am not being allowed to do so. This is heartbreaking for me and my family.

We need a fair rule in this country for the fathers who want to be part of the lives of their children.
Ian says:
February 26, 2013 at 12:37 PM
The people that need to change are the generally the people in control of the law. Judges need to enforce court orders. Cafcass are a complete failure and until they can be proved competent and actually produce proven, collaborated factual evidence in court for the judge to peruse and make decisions on, the law as it stands and any changes produced in the bill will mean absolutely nothing.
An overhaul into cafcass is needed, they fail Ofsted reports that companies other than cafcass would be closed down for. Cafcass are in countless complaints against them, I being one of them and until cafcass and the so called people in control whom have been in control for many years and still historically failing is beyond me. When are the government and the people going to stop this? There needs to be change but until the likes of cafcass are removed from their power hungry jobs with no accountability or transparency the law will always fail. Meanwhile families lives are destroyed.
A public enquiry is needed to investigate cafcass thoroughly and all the families that have suffered by the negligence of cafcass should have the facility to take litigation against them. I agree with many statements below but until expert evidence is available in the family courts from the onset without huge costs, any family law, private or public case will be a disgrace to the judiciary.
Coram Children's Legal Centre says:
February 26, 2013 at 12:36 PM
Clause 11- When parents separate, provided it is safe, children are more likely to thrive if they have a good quality relationship with both parents. However, we do not agree that it is in the best interests of children for this to be included in legislation. Courts are currently required to give paramount consideration to the welfare of the child when they are making a decision concerning a child’s care arrangements. This legal principle ensures that decision-making focuses on determining the needs and interests of each individual child, rather than on the expectations of parents. It also stops the courts from standardising decision-making, as it requires them to focus on each individual child's circumstances and needs. A legislative amendment giving rise to a presumption that involvement of both parents is in the best interests of the child will undermine this fundamental principle. In highly conflicted cases, which characterises most of the cases coming to court, it could have the effect of deepening conflict and could place the child at increased risk of harm.
S S says:
February 26, 2013 at 11:22 AM
Children and Families Bill
Comment

Section 11 of the Bill sets out a presumption of shared parenting for consideration by Parliament.

When parents separate there is an immeasurable stress upon both parties and inevitably the biggest losers are the children themselves. The biggest winners in my experience, are the lawyers who rely upon Legal Aid and deliberately and unnecessarily protract cases.

This submission makes clear the exasperating situation that the current rules and regulations permit unscrupulous women (and their legal representatives) to engage, to their considerable financial advantage.

My experience is borne out of an extremely difficult period between 1998 and 2001 which, under existing legislation, ensured I lost contact with my two very young adopted children. Mediation was attempted, but ineffective, and the other party were adamant they would continue to disrupt court agreements over access, simply sticking two fingers up at the different judges who presided over this sad situation.
• Due to the protracted and lengthy case, my case was dealt with by four different district judges - that process, in itself, was crassly stupid, as each judge appeared to want to "start afresh" giving both sides the benefit of the doubt; the reality was it allowed the opposing party to "play-out" delays and further exasperate matters, causing me unnecessary and unrealistic expense. The main benefactors in this case were the lawyers; no-one else, it cost me dearly (both financially, and mentally) and all the while, my ex-wife who was corrupting and delaying proceedings was doing so with the benefit of Legal Aid.

It is now 2013, and I still do not see the children, their minds were effectively poisoned at a very young age, and the damage had been wrought. Ably-assisted by outdated government legislature which needs radical overhaul.
I have deposited a fuller submission to my MP, the Rt. Hon. Graham Stuart MP. I am also indebted to help and assistance provided in the past, by the Rt Hon Joyce Quinn MP; the Rt. Hon. Fraser Kemp MP; and the Rt. Hon James Cran, MP.

We often treat our dogs and animals better in this country nowadays, than we do our children. We ought, as a progressive, caring and democratic society, do much better than we have done in the past.

Now is that chance to remedy things.

Related information

What is Public Reading?


Public Reading is an initiative to give members of the public the opportunity to provide their views on Bills before they are made into law. This is the first Public Reading to be run by the House of Commons and is a pilot of the process. Comments on the Bill will be made available to the Committee of MPs responsible for examining the Bill in detail so that they can take them into account when deciding whether to make changes to the Bill.

About the Children and Families Bill


The Children and Families Bill contains provisions to change the law in several areas relating to children and families.

Explanatory Notes


The Government publishes explanatory notes alongside a Bill to assist readers in understanding the proposed legislation

Additional Comments?


Comments on areas not covered by the listed Bill topics, or broader comments on the Bill as a whole (including anything that you think should have been included in the Bill but is not) should be posted as an additional comment. As this Public Reading is a pilot, we are also keen to hear your views on the public reading process itself.

Public Bill Committees


A Bill Committee is appointed for each Bill that goes through Parliament and is named after the Bill it considers. Public Bill Committees have the power to take written and oral evidence. The Committee examines the Bill line by line and reports its conclusions and any amendments to the Commons, where MPs debate the Bill further.

Pre-legislative Scrutiny


Some provisions in the Children and Families Bill were published in draft form last year so that MPs could scrutinise them and recommend changes to be made before the Bill itself was introduced to Parliament. Four different Committees from the House of Commons and the House of Lords examined draft clauses.