|
|
Men's Aid
is a registered charity which has been set up in Milton Keynes to provide
free practical advice and support to men who have been abused.
The Government define abuse
as "The violation of an individual's human and civil rights by
any other person or persons".
Abuse can
take many forms, including:
-
Physical
abuse,
-
Neglect (and acts of omission such as withholding food or medicine)
-
Psychological
abuse (bullying, threats, emotional blackmail, etc.)
-
Sexual
abuse,
-
Financial
or material abuse (theft or misappropriation of money or possessions)
-
Discrimination
(racist, sexist, homophobic, disability abuse, etc.)
-
Institutional
abuse (inappropriate care given by an organisation).
Abuse
can occur in any personal relationship, or any situation where a service
is being given, including formal or informal caregivers, or by a person
who has power or influence over the life of a dependent adult.The abuse
could be a single act, or repeated acts over a period of time. It may
take place because of a failure to act, or a failure to carry out appropriate
care tasks. It may happen to one person, or several people at the same
time.
Men's
Aid also provides free information and advice to parents who are seeking
to maintain a meaningful and responsible relationship with their children
after family break down or divorce. We aim to assist these parents in
their endeavours to achieve equal and just treatment in the Family Courts
and from their associated services. We recognize the value of fatherhood
and support the concept of equal parenting where parents work together
for and in the best interests of their children.
GETTING THE LAW WRONG
Policy Built on Nothing - Section 8 Contact Disputes
_______________________________________
The principles in the NATC 'Early Interventions'
project formed the basis of the 2004 Green Paper and the 2006
Children and Adoption Act. But the DfES never implemented the
EI project. Instead, DfES officials announced the changes that
EI would have introduced - as though they already
constituted the existing legal framework. This fundamental mistake
was promulgated nationwide:
THE MISTAKE: Started
in the Green Paper
“ After separation, both parents
should have responsibility for, and a meaningful relationship
with, their children, so long as it is safe. This
is the view of most people in our society. And it
is the current legal position” Green Paper,
Parental Separation, Summary, p 2
THE MISTAKE: Repeated in Parliament
“We fully support the position
established in case law that children normally benefit
from a meaningful relationship with both parents following
separation, so long as it is safe and in their best
interests for that to happen.” The Government,
Hansard, 29.6.05 Col 251
THE MISTAKE: Propounded by Parliament
“We note that the present law
regards it to be in a child’s best interests to
sustain a full relationship with both parents, unless
there are good reasons to the contrary. We consider
that a clear statutory statement of this principle would
encourage resident parents to assume in most cases that
contact should be taking place”
Constitutional Affairs Committee, Family
Justice Inquiry, Para 2, p 44, March 2005 |
-
This is wrong .There is NO such case
law & NO such principle. This is NOT the law
-
It is NOT the current legal position.
The existing legal system is the OPPOSITE
-
This mistake undermines ALL Section
8 policy (and much children’s policy generally
TWO OPPOSITE-AND-CONTRASTING
LEGAL SYSTEMS |
Presumption of
Reasonable Contact
As Intended and Announced |
Presumption of
Contact
The Way the Actual Legal System Works |
A good reason is need to stop all-material-contact
|
Any reason, no matter how trivial, can stop all material
contact |
The principle of reasonable or meaningful contact is protected
(in absence of good reason to the contrary)
|
The principle of reasonable, or meaningful, or full, child-parents
relations is not protected |
| ‘Good-enough’ parents should have reasonable
contact (in absence of good reason to the contrary) |
Even perfect parents have no entitlement to anything more
than almost-no-contact-at all |
| The stoppage of normal contact has to
be justified - by a good reason - before
the case begins |
The reinstatement of normal contact has
to be justified after the start of the
case (during which, any reason, no matter how trivial,
can stop all material contact) |
Most cases end before they start
|
Cases continue indefinitely |
| The system facilitates meaningful contact |
The system impedes meaningful contact |
We
do not have the legal system that we say we have, want
and need. New policies, predicated on the basis of this
non-existent system, will continue to fail as they are
put to the test. |
|
|
