Justice for Children - New Government Proposals

I attended the Law Society's Family Law Conference in November last year when an activist from Fathers 4 Justice handcuffed himself to the keynote speaker, Margaret Hodge, the Minister for Children. This was the latest in a series of public stunts carried out by Fathers 4 Justice who are campaigning for better contact between fathers and their children. The government denies that such groups have forced changes, and it may be a coincidence, but in January they announced their proposals for a better way to deal with disputes involving the care of children when parents separate.

Under the Government's proposals parents will continue to be encouraged to use family mediation, particularly before court proceedings begin, and when legal action begins they will be expected to undertake in-court conciliation. However, the Government has stopped short of making mediation compulsory on the basis that they argue this would undermine the process. Extra funding will be spent on child contact centres, which will help non-resident parents to be with their children in a safe environment.

The Courts are expected to work closely with the Government to provide better information about domestic violence, and the definition of "harm" to a child will be widened to include the effect that witnessing a parent suffering domestic violence has on a child.

Perhaps the most controversial part of the Government's proposals relates to enforcement of Contact Orders. The proposals will require a Bill, which is shortly due to be published, to extend the Court's powers when making Contact Orders. These will include referring a parent who is in breach of a Court Order to a variety of 'resources' including an information meeting, a meeting with a counsellor, or parenting programme classes designed to deal with contact disputes. The Court will also be able to make an Order for financial compensation from one parent to another where, for example, the cost of a holiday has been lost, and a Community Service Order. In addition to all these the ultimate sanction of the power to fine or imprison parents who breach a Contact Order will remain, but this is seen as a last resort.

The Government's proposals have been met with little enthusiasm by campaigning groups, such as Fathers 4 Justice, particularly because the Government stopped short of introducing a presumption of equal contact for father and mother. The principle that each case should be considered on its individual merits is to remain, and we will now need to see whether these measures go far enough in dealing with the very emotive situation when a non-resident is denied contact with his or her child.

Zoe Robinson