|
|
Welcome to UK Fathers
Free A-Z information and support resources index
The Guardian Putting mummy in the stocks By caving
in to Batman, a real opportunity has been missed Batman will soon claim his first maternal scalp - to the good of no one, least of all the children. Today three cabinet ministers, led by the education secretary Ruth Kelly, will announce concessions to groups, such as Fathers4Justice, campaigning for greater rights of access to their children. Divorced mothers who defy court orders will be tagged and kept to a night-time curfew. They may be fined - a great help to children probably already reared on a much reduced family budget. Or ordered to spend Saturday afternoons doing community service while dad has the offspring (as if mothers need to be reminded what it means to give selflessly). Fathers4Justice isn't happy because it still means mothers will escape jail, while its demand for 50:50 custody has also been ignored. Still, in terms of children's welfare and family law, these proposals are disastrous. Far from easing the relationship between father and child, they will turn mothers into martyrs, adding to a child's guilt. This policing of family life is all the more reprehensible because a constructive alternative is available. It is one that could genuinely improve life for the children of parents who live apart. Except that the scheme, the Early Interventions project (EI), has now effectively been buried as a result of Whitehall turf wars and civil service infighting. EI, based on a successful model used in Florida, has three key features. First, in families where the child is not at risk from a parent's behaviour, it is automatically assumed that he or she will spend between 70 to 100 nights a year with the non-resident parent. Second, couples attend mandatory courses that help them to understand the impact if a child is turned into a weapon in a post-matrimonial war. Third (and rarely employed), if a parent persistently refuses to comply with contact arrangements, then punishment follows. The British version welcomed a new partnership between courts and child development experts. Crucially, it also set a common baseline for contact, of up to 100 days per year with the non-resident parent, backed by the lever of the law and parental education. In October 2003, EI arrived at the Department for Education and Skills as a pilot project with ministerial backing. But in the hands of civil servants it underwent an Alice in Wonderland conversion. Without discussion or review (in contrast to the eight years it took to formulate EI), the scheme was renamed - it is now called the Family Resolutions project - and the basic premise discarded. It now operates under the ridiculous maxim that "every case is different", the very antithesis of the Florida philosophy. And, since every case is different, the opportunity to ensure a real cultural shift towards a child's right to maintain contact with both parents - who are also required to behave like grown-ups towards each other - has been lost. The Family Resolutions project isn't all bad. It requires parents "to refocus on the child's needs"; it is retraining the judiciary and it teaches conflict management. But it has scuppered the chance to build a fresh consensus in this divorce-prone society; to build a society that acknowledges that it is best that a child maintains regular, good-quality contact with the non-resident parent. The government
claims that only a small minority of parents use the law in conflictual
contact arrangements. According to the most recent figures, from 2001,
146,914 children in England Wales Is there any
chance of a happy ending? Caroline Willbourne, a family law judge,
has made the sensible proposal that the original Early Intervention
project be restored, under independent management and The map of family life is changing. According to recent research by the Office of National Statistics, 17% of separated fathers have some form of daily contact, 49% have weekly contact, and 69% have monthly contact. Inevitably, some fathers - and mothers - will fracture a child's heart by failing to turn up or by removing themselves permanently from the family. But bad behaviour by the few shouldn't deter public endorsement of the rule that it's better for a child when parental bonds are maintained. Instead, the government has opted to put mummy in the stocks. That will achieve nothing except to turn matriarchs into militants and create needless misery for yet more children. ----- Original
Message ----- Thank you for this! Best wishes Yvonne On 19 Jan 2005, at 20:01, dave.mortimer@tiscali.co.uk wrote: Putting mummy in the stocks http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1393463,00.html ----- Original
Message ----- Dr Phyllis
Starkey MP 7th January 2005 Dear Dr Starkey The Distortion of Family Policy Many thanks for forwarding Lord Filkin’s letter of 15 December about the substitution of the Early Interventions reforms. I’m not entirely sure that the picture painted by Lord Filkin is accurate. The truth is that a major family policy reform was hijacked by Whitehall. This is something of a disaster. The reforms stopped by Whitehall would have resolved the problems in the family courts I wonder if you would could pursue this? I attach two documents: (i) a background briefing (ii) a proposed letter to Lord Filkin Could you write to Lord Filkin again? Yours sincerely David Mortimer Family Policy – Background Briefing January 2005 Whitehall: Hijacking the Reform Process A bona-fide set of reform proposals developed by the legal profession was approved by Lord Filkin. The detailed specifications for this ‘Early Intervention’ reform were passed by the Minister to a DfES civil servant called Bruce Clark in October 2003. Mr Clark [1] was told to implement a finished design for a new model court system. Reform: Destroyed in Whitehall Mr Bruce Clark, of his own initiative: - decided to stop the approved reforms - decided to replace the approved reforms with his personal ideas Mr Clark, who had no relevant experience in this area: - devised a project which is the opposite of the agreed project - assured the Minister that he was producing the original EI reform project The Deformation of Family Policy The upshot is Mr Clark’s “Family Resolutions” project, which: - reverses the framework of the Florida system - abandons the proposed EI reforms - does not impinge on the existing legal system - consists of a pre-court non-legal Public Relations exercise - delays access to the existing court system Meanwhile, a Green Paper was prepared on the basis of Mr Clark’s assurances that the original EI reform project (which Mr Clark had destroyed) was nearing completion. The policies announced in the Green paper are in consequence incapable of fulfillment Corroboration A fully-documented ‘insider’ record, including day-by-day correspondence and emails up to Ministerial level, is available on request. Suggested letter to Lord Filkin Dear Lord Filkin, David Mortimer: Family Policy: The Early Interventions Project Thank you for your letter of 15 December. Mr Mortimer has asked me to say how very helpful he found your letter, in particular the paragraph that: “The Family Resolutions Pilot Project has not abandoned the principles of early intervention. Indeed in designing the Pilot Project we have drawn a great deal from the experience of other jurisdictions, particularly the Early Interventions model in Florida.” Mr Mortimer appears to think that this account is not fully supported by the written record. He claims that the Family Resolutions project (which he says is the opposite of the EI project) reverses the principles of Florida’s judicature. His point is that the approved EI reforms have been abandoned. Mr Mortimer claims that the legal profession accepts that the original EI project, which he says has been stopped, is the answer to the Family Court problem. He says that the wrong project has been built. My constituent wonders if there is truth in the stories that: (i) a lone Whitehall official decided to stop the EI project (ii) this same official concealed this decision by means of extended assurances to Ministers that he was completing the original EI project Mr Mortimer insists that there is an extensive written record to this effect. I have reassured him generally that his beliefs are misplaced. Perhaps you would assist with a reply specifically directed at points (i) and (ii) above? Best regards Dave
THE CONTENTS OF THIS SITE ARE FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.
Hosted by Eastern Web - www.easternweb.co.uk |
