Press Releases

16 June 2014

Over the weekend, there was significant coverage of claims in The Independent on Sunday, the Daily Telegraph and elsewhere by childcare expert Penelope Leach that "... as a general rule, children aged under five should not be separated from their mother by having a "sleepover" with the father, when couples have separated."

This comes from her new book on family breakdown, in which she says that attempts by separated parents to "share" young children is putting "adult rights" above those of  children, and that there is "undisputed" evidence that separating children from their mothers "reduces brain development" and creates a tendency toward "unhealthy attachment issues".

"We would all agree with the core message of Penelope Leach's book, which is that parents should always focus on their children's needs after separation" comments Jerry Karlin, Chair of Families Need Fathers.

"However, we find her interpretation of attachment theory as the necessity for mothers to exclusively be the main care givers in the early years, whilst relegating the role of separated fathers to little more than visitors, to be quite extraordinary.”

"This cuts across recent research, such as the major review by Richard Warshak."

"Shared Parenting doesn't have to mean a 50:50 split of time, but both parents should be involved in important decisions about their children's live, and in routine care. It is remarkable that these kind of outdated views are being expressed in light of current research in this field not to mention simple common sense – which has progressed significantly over the last few decades."

ENDS

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

30 June 2014

On 30th June, a written Ministerial statement confirmed that charges for use of the Child Maintenance Service are to be introduced in August 2014.

Whilst the drive to encourage greater cooperation between separated parents on maintenance issues is commendable, the use of charges for the statutory maintenance system is a blunt tool. Whilst all parents have an obligation to provide for their children, financially and emotionally, the high level of charges could make things worse for separated families rather than better.

Jerry Karlin, Chair of Families Need Fathers, commented, “A maintenance system needs to provide a platform for sustainable arrangements to be maintained. Charging paying parents an extra 20% if they are experiencing genuine financial problems risks catching them in a vicious cycle of accumulating debts and arrears owed to the Government, rather than helping to support their children.”

“The Child Maintenance Service must display a commitment to signposting paying parents who have problems with debt to specialist financial support services. Using the statutory system simply as a tool to punish the small minority of parents who try to avoid paying maintenance would not be in the best interests of separated families.”

Families Need Fathers has produced updated Factsheets on both the CSA and the Child Maintenance Service to assist parents struggling with child maintenance issues, available free to all FNF members.

ENDS

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

21 May 2014

Jerry Karlin, Chair of Families Need Fathers, commented, “All parents have an obligation to provide for their children, financially and emotionally. However, the decision to charge paying parents a 20% surcharge in the Collect and Pay system is short-sighted, and is more likely to exacerbate problems for separated families than to help them work together.

The majority of parents with open CSA cases are either unemployed or on low incomes. The Government has no information to suggest how many parents are deliberately avoiding making maintenance payments, compared to those that are experiencing genuine financial problems they require support to resolve.

A maintenance system needs to provide a platform for sustainable arrangements to be maintained. Parents who have trouble meeting a payment through circumstances beyond their control risk becoming caught up in a vicious cycle of accumulating debts and arrears owed to the Government, rather than helping to support their children, which is not in the best interests of separated families.”

ENDS

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

Media information for journalists and researchers can be found here.

Current Press Release:

For immediate release                                                     5 December 2014

Legal aid procedures causing problems for the Family Court, according to President of the Family Division

Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division, says that problems with the quality of decision-making by the Legal Aid Agency, and the complexity of the process for applying for Legal Aid, is, in some private family law cases, skewing the court process , and risks undermining positive outcomes for children and parents.

Speaking at the charity Families Need Fathers’ AGM, Sir James said, “It would be idle to imagine that the process in private law cases has not been affected by the fact that legal aid is simply not available unless there is an allegation of domestic violence.

And that of course produces another problem because the consequence of that is - and we have seen it in number of cases and I have given judgments on this – we are increasingly seeing cases where the woman – usually but not always the woman - who alleges domestic violence has legal aid and her partner does not. That simply produces further problems. It produces problems for the partner, typically the man. It produces problems for the judge. Most importantly of all, it produces problems for the child because, as I repeatedly say, unless both parents have a fair process then the child is not having a fair process and if the parents don’t have a fair process and the child doesn’t have a fair process then the risk one is running is not only injustice to the parent but injustice and worse to the child.

Sir James went on to say:  “Of course legal aid is a matter of political decision. It is a matter of public policy - an area in which judges can tread only with great care. Where we can tread and I don’t shrink from this is if it is impacting on the fairness of the proceedings in front of us it is our duty to make sure the proceedings in front of us are fair. If that requires representation we must say so and if the absence of representation means the proceedings are not fair and because they are not fair are potentially prejudicial to the interests of the child then we must say so. “

Jerry Karlin, Chair of the charity Families Need Fathers, commented, “Thrusting a parent who is often in a very fragile state of mind after separation into a system they have little understanding of, to defend themselves against often very serious allegations presented by experienced legal professionals, creates an imbalanced system that does little to serve the interests of justice. The undermining of the many good initiatives being introduced in private family law to try and improve the process and management of cases by this fundamental flaw can result in the best interests of children being compromised, and we hope the Government will sit up and take notice of the concerns expressed by the President.”

Legal aid in private family law cases was greatly restricted by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012, and since April 2013 has been available only to the party making an allegation of domestic violence.

Sir James covered a wide range of topics relating to family law in his talk, including the need for courts to take a more ‘sceptical’ approach to reports from Guardians, Cafcass and social workers, where concerns have often been raised about the quality of the information provided to the court. He said, “The fact is the courts are getting much, much more sceptical, much more searching, less blindly accepting of reports…. People who come to court with sloppy things, not properly thought out, are told to go away. That, I know is in public law but the same attitude must apply across the board. We have got to question everything wherever it comes from.”

Sir James also praised the work of Families Need Fathers,, saying, “It is a particular privilege if I may say so to be here on your 40th anniversary. You as an organisation have been doing invaluable work for far too many years. The fact that there is still so much to be done is no criticism of you but is, if anything, a commentary on the system. All I can say is keep up the good work. We all have a very long way to go.”

Sir James Munby has been President of the Family Division of the High Court of England and Wales since January 2013. His speech, entitled “Family Separation – Opportunities and Problems” was delivered to coincide with Families Need Fathers’ 40^th anniversary. Sir James spoke for an hour, and took questions from the floor for a further hour afterwards.  The Families Need Fathers AGM took place on 16^th November 2014 at Resource for London, 356 Holloway Road, London, N7 6PA.

ENDS 

For comment, case studies or information please contact:

Ross Jones, Policy & Communications Manager 0300 0300 110

Note for editors:

The full transcript of Sir James Munby's speech is available Sir James Munby - FNF 2014 Conference Speech.

Families Need Fathers (FNF) is a registered charity providing information and support on shared parenting issues arising from family breakdown, and support to divorced and separated parents, irrespective of gender or marital status.

Our primary concern is the maintenance of the child’s relationship with both parents. 

Founded in 1974, FNF helps thousands of parents every year.

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

There is no reason why she shouldn't be required to go and clean the streets, whatever it may be"

Former president of the Family Division, Lady Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, has called for family courts to enforce orders they have made for contact between children and their non-resident parent.

In an exclusive interview with Families Need Fathers on the impact of the new Children and Families Act, Lady Butler-Sloss calls for a greater emphasis on the obligations of resident parents to follow court orders.

Lady Butler-Sloss stated, “I can see absolutely no reason why she shouldn’t do community service. I should like to see her penalised in all sorts of inconvenient ways as long as it doesn’t have any impact on her care of the child. So as long as the child is over 5 or goes to a child minder, then there is no reason why she shouldn’t be required to go and clean the streets, whatever it may be. I would make her do something really unpleasant so that she understands the consequences of this.”

The interview is contained in a briefing on the new Act for members of Families Need Fathers.

Lady Butler-Sloss explains the reasons behind her amendment of Section 11 of the Children and Families Act to give wide scope for interpreting the meaning of ‘parental involvement’. She says, contrary to criticism directed at her, this was not intended to undermine the Act.

She commented, “I think Section 11 will set that out [the obligations of both parents to act in the best interests of their children] more obviously, and correctly. I entirely accept the advantage of making sure in public policy that both parents matter.”

Jerry Karlin, Chair of Families Need Fathers, commented, “I am pleased that Lady Butler-Sloss emphasises the importance of ensuring orders are properly enforced in the family justice system. Far too many of our members find that they are still unable to see their children even once an order providing for contact is in place.

A court only makes an order for contact where this is in the child’s best interests, so breaches of orders sadly hurt children and parents alike. I support Lady Butler-Sloss’ call for greater use of enforcement measures that do not impact upon the ability of either parent to care for the child, and hope that this important subject will receive greater attention as part of the wider programme of family law reform.”

A copy of the Briefing can be downloaded here.

ENDS

What do you think?

Send us feedback!