UK Family Law Reform

Free information index

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: BBC News - Separated fathers to gain legal right to see children

Dear Anne Main M.P.

Please advise Mr. Timpson that his new legislation will have no value as it

Mr. Timpson has got it wrong as a result of not having the necessary
information. If a father is adjudged violent in a secret family court
hearing that he has not heard about, "on the balance of probability", then
he will not gain access to his children. Family Court judges must transfer
charges of violence to the criminal court where "beyond all reasonable
doubt" applies. Also, the practise of not punishing perjury by false
allegation of violence must end.

Pretending to legislate to give a father access to his children is all very
well, but it is extraordinary how uninformed politicians are, including the
Children's Minister Edward Timpson. I have noticed for years that the Men's
Movement insists on not noticing that under national and international law
and declaration, a child has no right of access to its parent. And yet all
including Mr. Timpson do nothing about this part of the interests of
children, even while always emphasising " Sir Alan Beith, .... .... changing
the law which makes the interests of the child paramount." Timpson limits
his "reform" to the rights of fathers, ignoring children.

I notice that the Men's Movement persist in not noticing that a parent has
no legal right of access to its child, but also that a child has no legal
right of access to its parent. Any allegedly legal right has no value if
moderated by the caveat "unless they are likely to harm them" on the balance
of probability.

The newspaper report says; "Separated fathers are to gain the legal right to
spend time with their children unless they are likely to harm them." The
caveat about harm to the child makes the "legal right" valueless. It is
routine for a father to be charged with violence and it being believed by
the secret family court "on the balance of probability" when he does not
know that there is a court hearing. This was used in my case, and for two
years I found that the court and the CID refused to investigate my charges
of perjury. If the caveat "unless they are likely to harm them" is included,
it must be matched by a removal of the power of secret family court judges
to make the judgement as to violence. Legislation must be passed to require
family court judges to transfer allegations of violence to the criminal
courts, where the judgement is "beyond all reasonable doubt". The amount of
family violence has been fabricated by Professor Stanko and her false "one in
four" figure quoted by the then Head of the Family Courts Butler-Sloss and
Cherie Blair.;

Ivor Catt

Separated fathers to gain legal right to see children 6th November 2012

Separated fathers are to gain the legal right to spend time with their children unless they are likely to harm them.

The changes to access laws were announced in a letter to MPs from the Children's Minister Edward Timpson.

The letter says both parents should have the chance "to play a positive role in their children's lives when it is safe and in their best interests".

The 2013 change is seen as unnecessary by legal experts, but welcomed by fathers' rights groups.

The letter states that the government's starting point in the changing the legislation is based on two principles - firstly that the safety of children is paramount, secondly that both parents should be involved in their upbringing.

'Too adversarial'
Mr Timpson writes: "I know from my own experience practising as a family lawyer, that many separating couples feel the system is far too adversarial, with courts seen as creating 'winners' and 'losers'.

"It is vital that both mothers and fathers feel confident that the court will consider fully the benefits of their involvement."

He adds that the absence of an explicit reference to this in the Children Act 1989 "has contributed to a perception that the law does not fully recognise the important role that both parents can play in a child's life.

"We remain convinced that a change to the law is needed to help restore confidence in the family court system."

Legal experts remain unconvinced. A statement from the law society said: "The welfare of children must always come before the rights of parents and no legislation should create or point to a perception that there is an assumed parental right to substantially shared or equal time for both parents.

"While the government's intention to promote co-operative parenting is welcomed, legislation to promote shared parenting is not needed. Current legislation adequately provides the right framework for securing a child's welfare."

Sir Alan Beith, chairman of the parliamentary Justice Committee, has previously warned the proposed legislation risked confusion. Commenting on the announcement, Sir Alan said: "The Justice Committee has looked at the dangers of changing the law which makes the interests of the child paramount.

"The committee is now going to look at the details of the clauses to assess what effect they may have. Shared parenting is very much to be desired, but changing the law in this way could have unintended consequences."

Mr Timpson's letter says the proposed legislative change does not give or imply the creation of any rights to equal time or of how much time is appropriate: "Courts will continue to make decisions based on children's best interests."

The lobby group Families Need Fathers welcomed the announcement.

Chief executive Ken Sanderson said: "This is a very positive move, and will help to ensure that as many children as possible can continue to benefit from a meaningful relationship with both parents following separation and divorce."

The legal changes are likely to come into force next year.

Join us in campaigning for equality and justice.