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

Ram says:
February 23, 2013 at 10:39 PM
I agree with this long over due amendment to the "Act".

This is finally confirming the principle of equality between the sexes in family proceedings. The current legislation the 89 Act is probably the clearest we probably we have on the books as it clearly states the child's interests are paramount in all cases. The current legislation probably expected that there would not be such inequality between the sexes over next 30 years.

However due to dated preconceptions such as "children should always be with their mother as a general rule" often held by CAFCASS, social services and the courts such inequality has sadly prevailed.

I think clause 11 is really a very sharp to Explicit reminder to such key decision makers with regard to children, that they must now treat men fairly in family proceedings.

A very small but significant victory for men in family proceedings.
Nigel B says:
February 23, 2013 at 07:31 PM
I personally have found that it is the initial separation process where most damage can take place with parent alienation taking place as a form of revenge and not in the children's best interests. It has also been an extremely costly and slow process. When help was eventually given I found the cafcass service extremely good but seriously over burdened. Although children's wishes are taken into account they are usually coerst into their answers due to the over bearing nature of the parent with continuous overall responsibility.
Frances B says:
February 23, 2013 at 05:58 PM
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, states in Article 9 (separation from parents) Children must not be separated from their parents unless it is in the best interests of the child (for example, in cases of abuse or neglect). A child must be given the chance to express their views when decisions about parental responsibilities are being made. Every child has the right to stay in contact with both parents, unless this might harm them.
Clause 11 which introduces a Presumption of shared parenting is how it should be and is long over due. The UK is behind many countries on this issue and not just in Europe.
Ian says:
February 23, 2013 at 05:18 PM
I can guarantee with my personal experience of the system that I always will and have my childs best interests as the main priority since before birth, but that has not stopped my child from being alienated from me by his maternal family and aided by the courts and the corrupt cafcass with many lies and delays. 3 years in court and counting and this is what is harming our chldren. What other means has a father got to be involved in their childs life if the resident parent/ mother restricts and/or stops contact. Are you expecting all fathers to give up on their children because no mother would either. The system is abused by many resident parents and has been for years which will only get worse until the law is changed. Protecting our children is paramount, but by ignoring the equality issues it is unlikely that those same children will be protected from parental alienation and emotional abuse by the resident parent either.

The courts are losing a battle and they rely on evidence produced by cafcass. Cafcass are unfit for purpose and are free from accountability. If cafcass publicised the complaints against them as they do with their other statistics, it would identify just how much cafcass are failing our children and family justice system. The public or anyone involved in the family courts have lost complete confidence in cafcass.

There is no reason why shared parenting shouldnt work and it is about time fathers and non resident parents had the same respect as mothers and resident parents do in regards to the law.
Nicola P says:
February 23, 2013 at 02:22 PM
Clause 11: I am divorced and share parenting with my ex (we have a disabled boy). It used to be 50/50 until I had to relocate, it's now 'as often as possible'. 50/50 DOES work if the parents are amicable, mature and ALWAYS put the child first. If the father doesn't pose a threat to the child or mother, then they have every right to be involved in the parenting of that child. My son has a very healthy relationship with both of us. He has every right to see his father and for his father to be active in his life.
Dean F says:
February 23, 2013 at 02:06 PM
I would like to stress how important clause 11 is regarding shared parenting it is about the child having a health relationship with both parents and both parent being able to do what is required for the child to prosper, to often this imbalance of access lead to alienation, conflict and eventuyally poor role modelling for the child and in some cases parental alenation. Haveing this address I believe will provide a enviroment for the child where the child can build a healthy and robust foundation that will equip him for life in the modern world
E H says:
February 23, 2013 at 02:05 PM
I didn't realize how unfair the justice system was until I found myself embroiled in my terrible situation involving my son, myself and contact with my granddaughter. Why is there even a WARNING NOTICE placed on all court documents if these mothers know that simply because they are mothers they will simply get a slap on the back of their wrist and told not to do it again. Enforcement HAS to be included. Surely it is not much to ask that when a COURT OF LAW makes a decision it expects that decision to be followed?
If Contact Orders are not enforced, the LAW is a JOKE! There is only you can help by please sitting up and taking notice of what is going on around you. You know what is right and fair, our laws need to be changed drastically. There must be thousands of children in this country crying themselves to sleep missing their other parent, suffering needlessly because somebody many years ago believed the children should stay with their mothers with little or no contact from the fathers / grandparents and extended family. There will be cases of fathers possibly guilty of domestic violence, drug habits or worse. Yes these people should be scrutinized and contact made available with supervision. But there are far far more fathers out there who are law abiding citizens with no criminal records who just want to continue providing the love and guidance to their children that they have always done until their separation from the mothers. Who are the body of people that claim they know the children would not develop positively and thrive from having two parents equally involved in their child's life or that grandparents on both sides should also be allowed the same quality time with their grandchild instead it is all just one sided, mother and maternal grandparents, forget everybody else! the child being the most affected... the one who suffers most... I thought the children would be everybody's first priority.... not the last??
Ah says:
February 23, 2013 at 12:40 PM
As a young adult whose childhood was damaged by constant legal proceedings in order for my mother to not allow my father to see me or my sister, I particularly support bill 11, I think it is crucial that children see both parents equally and especially fathers are not simply pushed out because of the personal opinions of the mother. The fact that my dad fought so hard to stay in contact with me and my sister even though the odds were highly against him at all times, has been invaluable to our progression into adulthood. If it had been easier for him at the beginning many years of fighting and pain would have been removed from our childhood.
Robert H says:
February 23, 2013 at 12:27 PM
I strongly support the Clause 11 "presumption that the involvement of both parents in a child’s life will further that child’s welfare, unless the contrary is shown." I struggled to remain a part of my two daughters' lives after divorce. They are now grown up (19 and 21). I know they now appreciate my efforts and I feel they have benefited from having two parents who played a part in their growing up.
Bruno D says:
February 23, 2013 at 11:43 AM
There exists a large body of psychological and sociological research (some of it Government-commissioned) which plainly demonstrates the benefits for children of their remaining in meaningful contact with both parents, post separation/ divorce:

http://www.fira.ca/cms/documents/181/April7_Kruk.pdf

http://sharedparenting.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/12c/

http://www.thecustodyminefield.com/Reports/FamilyLaw-Relocation_The_Need_For_Reform.pdf (pages 20 & 21)

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=scientific+evidence+for+shared+parenting+&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CGcQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aph.gov.au%2FParliamentary_Business%2FCommittees%2FHouse_of_Representatives_Committees%3Furl%3Dfca%2Fchildcustody%2Fsubs%2Fsub0909appc.pdf&ei=grP9UKHAPPKb1AXuh4DgDA&usg=AFQjCNHP38avU08444gTgcf4D7h3Kp69rg

Of course, as with all scientific inquiry, evidence is never 100% conclusive. Selected research which undermines shared parenting in high-conflict situations can certainly be found (see a previous post).

However, taken as a whole, there is a general consensus amongst the scientific community that children generally benefit from being permitted to remain in meaningful contact with both their natural parents.

Furthermore, much of the scientific data in favour of shared parenting has already been exhibited as evidence at the Family Division of the High Court.

After having read such evidence in the case of Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50, the former President of the Family Division, Sir Nicholas Wall published his considered view that current family law relegates the importance of maintaining a meaningful and on-going relationship between children and their non-resident parent.

In Re AR (A Child: Relocation) [2010] EWHC 1346, High Court judge, Sir Nicholas Mostyn J, also made reference to contemporary scientific evidence in favour of shared parenting.

The scientific evidence in favour of shared parenting was also considered by the international judiciary when it formulated the Washington Declaration in 2011.

Finally, it is vitally important to dismiss two prevalent myths concerning shared parenting:

Firstly, shared parenting does not necessitate a 50/50 division of parenting time, and most parents are quite capable of understanding this point. Good and loving non-primary parents who currently find themselves excluded from their children's lives for many months on end would, I am quite sure, be very happy simply to continue seeing their children on a frequent and regular basis at a below 50% level.

Secondly, if there is evidence of verifiable danger to the child, contact can and will be restricted. The Bill makes this perfectly clear and I am quite surprised that those opposed to the legislation appear blind to this very important safe-guard. The Bill clearly does not undermine the Paramountcy Principle.

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.