Call our National Helpline on 0300 0300 363
Check availability times

The UK's leading Shared Parenting charity

        Forgot Login?  

Join us now...
Consider a small donation...

FNF will receive 5% of anything you spend with Amazon using this link.

Try it now and bookmark it for future use!


  • Available evidence suggests that countries that invest in paternity leave end up with narrower pay gaps, More importantly they lead to more shared parenting whether together or apart and children's wellbeing is much improved as a result. We'll see what the detailed proposals look like, but the broad recommendations should be welcomed. They won't change outcomes overnight, but this is an important step in the right direction. Please consider supporting us by liking this, sharing it, following us on Facebook, registering for free, making a donation or joining FNF. We welcome your comments too!
  • Here is a rather woolly article which we came across. One aspect which is especially galling is the insidious implicit assumption it creates that any income received by the CMS-paying parent should be considered in the calculation, even if it arises from investments etc. In my understanding such investments – including a business or other assets, AND including any “unearned” returns therefrom, are generally the subject of a financial settlement agreement quite outside the scope of CMS. CMS is in principle supposed to be calculated on day-to-day “earned” income in general due to employment, salary, etc, in order to provided day-to-day support of the child. This article creates the impression that anything the NRP receives should somehow always be subject to the CMS when that is just not the spirit of the income-sharing arrangement. Obviously there are those who might try to disguise their income to avoid payment, but that is for HMRC to police and should not be an excuse to place a further squeeze on the many people who simply pay the CMS monies over for their children based on their salaries. Should one pay more if the value of one's house goes up? Of course not! And what about the other parent's income? - why is that ignored altogether. What an shamefully outdated attitude this approach projects. Mind you, wouldn't it be great though if a future CMS, in addition to considering both parents' financial situation rather just one, also required both parents to tick a box acknowledging regular contact as per court order/parenting agreement before any payment is due after an assessment is made? We live in hope. Meanwhile here's the article:
  • Here's a thoughtful joke I spotted recently: One morning, John returns the family boat to their lakeside cottage after several hours of fishing and decides to take a nap. Although not familiar with the lake, his wife decides to take the boat out. She motors out a short distance, anchors, puts her feet up, and begins to read her book. Along comes a Fish and Game Warden in his boat. He pulls up alongside the woman and says, 'Good morning, Ma'am. What are you doing?' 'Reading a book,' she replies, (thinking, 'Isn't that obvious?') 'You're in a Restricted Fishing Area,' he informs her. 'I'm sorry, officer, but I'm not fishing. I'm reading.' 'Yes, but I see you have all the equipment. For all I know you could start at any moment. I'll have to give you an on the spot fine.' 'If you do that, I'll have to charge you with sexual assault,' says the woman. 'But I haven't even touched you,' says the Warden. 'That's true, but you have all the equipment. And for all I know you could start at any moment.' 'Have a nice day ma'am,' says the warden, and he left.
  • Various media today cover the story of actor Gary Oldman's son, Gulliver, defending his dad in relation to repeated allegations by his and his brother's mother. Single parents are not always mums and it is gratifying to see how warmly he speaks of his dad. Of course, we don't know the family history and what was decided in court proceedings. It could be that contact orders were broken and the children were alienated against their mother. It could be the other way around too and she lost out in maintaining her relationships with her boys because of her inappropriate behaviour, perhaps compounded by mental health difficulties. If she was alienated, one might understand why she would wish to 'reach-out' to her children in the media if that is the only way she can. If there was a domestic situation, it may not have been one-sided or, as their son says, it may simply be untrue. If her intention was to reach-out to her sons, however, by focusing on allegations and denigration of the father, without nuance or balance, she is more likely to push the children further away. Without knowing both sides of the story in full it is difficult to judge. Please support us by liking this page, sharing it, following us, registering for free, making a donation or joining.
  • Domestic abuse is traumatic for those affected and needs appropriate action. However, there is a need for even-handedness and care in legislation. It cannot be right, for example, in family proceedings, that accusers can qualify for legal aid, but not the accused. This already happens on the basis of self-reporting alone - ie with little or no evidence being considered. Neither can it be right that when judges find that allegations of abuse were unfounded and malicious, that granted Legal Aid is not asked to be repaid and that sanctions are not imposed. Again, this is the norm. And is it right that shouting at someone can be sufficient for them to claim Legal Aid, especially when both parties typically indulge in such behaviour as relationships draw to an end? And what should happen when those involved are in a relationship which has become mutually abusive? And why is coercive control not considered to be an offence when it involves blackmailing a parent by threatening to deny contact if the parent won't pay over and above the assessed amount of Child Maintenance? At the end of the day coercive control can play an enormous part in difficult separations, and it is not always clear at all who is the abuser. Both parties have a right to justice and some way must be found to enable both parties to benefit from cross-examination and for the outcome to rely on evidence. Anything else makes our family justice system into a travesty. Ministers at this time seem uninterested in these anomalies. People may wish to contact their MPs about this. Please support us by liking this page, following us, sharing it, registering with us for free, making a donation or joining.
  • Right that this donor father and paternal grandparents were given contact, but the judges were far from generous at 14 hours a year to the father and two occasions for the grandparents. All the more so given that the mothers felt that it was worth appealing those two visits by the grandparents and previously stopped all contact with the father for 18 months. What are the chances this will all go smoothly on the basis of the judgement made? Please support us by liking this page, following us, sharing it, registering with us for free, making a donation or joining.

FNF HSSF Kite Mark Award

Families Need Fathers has been awarded the Help and Support for Separated Families Kite Mark which is a new UK government accreditation scheme for organisations offering help to separated families.

Families Need Fathers work with a range of family law professionals, including Family Law Panel


Upcoming Events

22/03/2018 Thu: London East (Tower Hamlets)
24/03/2018 Sat: Harrow Branch Meetings
26/03/2018 Mon: London Central Meeting
27/03/2018 Tue: Harrow Branch Meetings
28/03/2018 Wed: Cambridge Meeting
29/03/2018 Thu: Exeter Meeting
2/04/2018 Mon: London Central Solicitor's Clinic
2/04/2018 Mon: Edinburgh Meeting
2/04/2018 Mon: Nottingham Meeting
2/04/2018 Mon: Northern Ireland Meeting
2/04/2018 Mon: Reading Meeting
3/04/2018 Tue: Leeds Central Meeting
3/04/2018 Tue: Newcastle Meeting
3/04/2018 Tue: Oxford Meeting (check day with branch)
3/04/2018 Tue: Northampton Meeting
4/04/2018 Wed: Manchester Meeting
4/04/2018 Wed: London West Meeting & Solicitor Clinic