Fathers
get raw deal on child access, say MPs
By Clare Dyer
The
Guardian - Wednesday 2nd March 2005
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1428279,00.html
Separated
and divorced fathers get a raw deal from the family justice system in
England and Wales, a committee of MPs concludes in a report today.
The constitutional affairs committee said there was no "conscious"
bias in the courts against "non-resident" parents, mainly
fathers, but failings in the system made it difficult for them to keep
contact with their children.
The
committee, which heard evidence from judges, lawyers and fathers' groups
for an inquiry into the family courts, found that inbuilt delays in
the system conspired against fathers wishing to see their children and
could be exploited tactically by mothers to try to deny contact.
"There
are considerable grounds for accepting that non-resident parents are
frequently disadvantaged by the system as it is administered at present,"
they said.
This disadvantage would continue while court delays persisted, while
cases could not be brought back to court quickly or before the same
judge, and while judges had limited powers to ensure their contact orders
were obeyed.
The
MPs called for "a clear and unequivocal commitment to move as many
cases as possible from the court system altogether". They said
parents should be given help to resolve their disputes by negotiation,
with the courts as a last resort.
It
was "unclear" whether the reforms outlined in a government
green paper would achieve this result. Where there was no option but
go to court, cases should be effectively managed and delays kept to
a minimum, the MPs said.
The
government is piloting a "family resolution" project in three
courts. To help cut cases going to court, parents are to be trained
in anger management and negotiating skills, and given parenting classes.
The
MPs said it was "disappointing" that an "early intervention"
scheme based on a successful model in Florida, which included compulsory
mediation and had strong support from judges, was not to be tried in
Britain.
The
children's and family court advisory and support service, known as Cafcass,
is to be given a new role, helping to facilitate contact arrangements
for families rather than be engaged in writing lengthy reports for court
cases.
But
the MPs warned that this reform would fail unless substantial resources
were provided for Cafcass.
The
committee rejected calls by some fathers' groups for 50-50 parenting
time or any other strict formula, arguing that "an arbitrary apportionment
of time does not take account of the views of children".
But
it calls for a statement, to be enshrined in law, saying it would be
in the interests of children to sustain a full relationship with both
parents unless there were good reasons to the contrary.
The
report blamed "lack of transparency" as a big factor in bringing
about dissatisfaction with the family courts, which hear most cases
behind closed doors. An "obvious move" would be to allow the
press and public into the family courts, under appropriate reporting
restrictions and subject to the judge's discretion to exclude the public.
The
MPs also called for a change in the law to allow grandparents an automatic
right to apply for contact with their grandchildren.
