Despite
plans to give parents the legal right to see their children after
divorce the Family Justice Review chaired by David Norgrove
recommended:
No legislation should
be introduced that creates or risks creating the perception that
there is a parental right to substantially shared or equal time for
both parents.
Ken Sanderson, CEO of
the charity 'Families Need Fathers', spoke for many fathers when he
said,
Sadly, I believe that
the report's focus on 'making parental responsibility work' is far
too optimistic when it comes to improving long-term outcomes for
children and their families. The problem is not that parents are
inadequately aware of what parental responsibility means; the crux of
the matter is that it is all too easy for one parent to simply ignore
this and omit the other from their child's life, with a justice
system which is unable and unwilling to take firm action to prevent
this. The absence of any firm recommendations to strengthen
children's rights to a meaningful relationship with both parents, and
their wider family, represents a dereliction of duty on behalf of the
review, and we implore the government to reconsider this before
proposing legislation. In the view of FNF, the panel failed to
appreciate that shared parenting and the right to a meaningful
relationship with both parents is not a question of time, but of
involvement in the child's physical, educational and emotional
development.
In contrast the Bar
Council and the Family Law Bar Association (FLBA) welcomed the key
proposals. Stephen Cobb QC, Chairman of the FLBA, said:
We are pleased with
many of its recommendations which, if implemented, should reduce the
scandalous delays which currently exist in the family justice system.
David Allison, Chair
of Resolution, commented:
As an association
committed to the constructive resolution of family problems, we
welcome the Family Justice Review as a springboard for progressive
reform that makes family law fit for purpose in the 21st century.
Law Society Chief
Executive Desmond Hudson said:
The report's overall
aims should attract wide ranging support. We share its recognition of
the need for radical and lasting change within family justice.
The Chief Executive of
CAFCASS Anthony Douglas, welcomed proposals for a more child-focused
and faster family justice system;
We welcome the panel's
emphasis on the needs of vulnerable children in these cases and on
the focus it has given to tackling the corrosive effect of delay on
their lives. In particular, we welcome proposals for a time limit in
public law cases and the development of a child's arrangement order
in private law cases, so that in both types of case the child's
deadline takes precedence over bureaucratic processes.
The British
Association of Social Workers welcomed the Family Justice Review but
warned against budget-driven policy. Commenting on the report, BASW
chief executive Hilton Dawson said:
There are elements in
the report that we welcome, but overall it takes a somewhat cautious
approach. We would hope that the development of a unified family
justice service will make the system easier to navigate for both
children and families. We also support calls for a robust legal
framework, designed to work in tandem with the reforms to child
protection practice recommended by Professor Eileen Munro and with
the work of the Social Work Reform Board.
National Family
Mediation also welcomed the enhanced role of mediation in the Family
Justice Review. Jane Robey, CEO of National Family Mediation, said:
We welcome the Family
Justice Review and the enhanced role for mediators. Our mediators
receive the best training in the country and are experts in their
field. We believe mediation provides the best outcomes for families
and children and gives people the chance to make their own decisions
about their future if they choose to mediate.
Bob Reitemeier, Chief
Executive of The Children's Society, said:
A radical overhaul of
the family justice system is long overdue. For too long, it has
functioned as an incoherent, disjointed system that does not meet the
best interests of the child. Delay in decision making, a lack of
understanding of child development and a culture that often works
against children rather than for children has led to poor outcomes.
The government should not delay in moving to reform the system so
that in every case the child's concerns are at the heart of the
decision making process.
Conclusion
According
to Kelly and Lamb (Using
Child Development Research to Make Appropriate Custody and Access
Decisions for Young Children, 2000)
the development of attachments to parents and
other caregivers constitutes one of the most critical achievements of
the first year of life.
These
enduring ties play essential formative roles in later social and
emotional functioning. Infant-parent attachments promote a sense of
security, the beginnings of self-confidence, and the development of
trust in other human beings.
Considerable evidence
now exists that documents that most infants form meaningful
attachments to both of their parents at roughly the same age. This is
true even though many fathers in our culture spend less time with
their infants than mothers do. This indicates that time spent
interacting is not the only factor in the development of attachments,
although some threshold of interaction is crucial. Most infants come
to "prefer" the parent who takes primary responsibility for
their care (typically their mothers), but this does not mean that
relationships with the other parent are unimportant. The preference
for the primary caretaker appears to diminish with age, and by 18
months, this preference often has disappeared.
Shared Parenting
legislation reinforces the positive lessons we have learnt about
child development as subsequently demonstrated by the 'Australian
experience'.
The need to 'redress
the balance and promote a more equal sharing of responsibility for
children between mothers and fathers' still remains yet it is the
hardest thing in the world to overturn the status quo. Nevertheless
despite the views of politicians and the judiciary alike, the voice
of the public, in response to the Norgrove Report showed that there
is a desire in society to embrace change not simply in the interests
of justice but for the well-being of all our children.