About child contact.

Yes guys, yet another cut and paste from the governments ( How to get off the hook) hand book has surfaced.
My thoughts are in blue text below the original.

Have you noticed how they manage to avoid a very important word in their brief:
Yes it is called EQUAL or EQUALITY!

Can anyone out there please try to tell me:

1. Why do I need to go to court to remain a loving and devoted parent for my children?

2. If I must go to court can anyone please tell me why the court action is not on-going in the background and the child / parent relationship
does not faulter?

3. Why does a judge not enforce the law?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Morris
Thank you for your email dated 16 November about child contact. On this occasion I have been asked to reply.

The Government believes that children benefit from a continuing relationship with both parents following divorce or separation, where it is safe and in the child’s best interests. The Children Act 1989 supports this and, most importantly, it makes the welfare of the child concerned, rather than the rights of the parents, its paramount consideration. While most parents can and do resolve issues about contact and residence following separation or divorce, the court becomes involved if either parent applies for an order for residence or contact. The court has a wide discretion to take account of all the facts and circumstances of each individual case. Decisions are made after the judge has heard and considered all the evidence provided by both parties and any other witnesses, including experts. Both parties are entitled to have their views heard and have the opportunity to respond to any evidence put before the court. If arrangements under a court order do not work out, either parent may, according to the circumstances, apply to the court for the order to be varied, revoked, or enforced.

We do not see any need to change this law, but we do need to change the way parents settle disputes. In particular, we would like to see a reduction in the number of parents resorting to the courts, as this so often results in poorer outcomes for the children and greater dissatisfaction for the parents. Where cases do come before the court, we are promoting extensive use of measures such as mediation and in-court conciliation to divert such cases from a full court hearing. Linked to this, we also want to provide a wider range of levers to ensure the proper implementation of court orders.

I realise there are cases where non-resident parents have difficulty in maintaining contact with their children because of the obstructive behaviour of the parent with whom the children reside. Where contact has been agreed or ordered by the courts, it is essential that it is adhered to. If, at the end of a long and difficult dispute, the contact ordered by the court does not take place, then it has been a waste of time and energy but, more importantly, the child is not benefiting from what the court has decided will promote their welfare. The enforcement of contact orders is a sensitive area. Deliberate refusal to obey any court order is contempt of court that can be punished with a fine or imprisonment. The court also has the power to decide to transfer residence to the other (non-resident) parent if this is considered to be in the child’s best interests.

However, penalties such as fines and imprisonment may not always be appropriate in a child contact case because of the effect that this may have on the children at the centre of the dispute. The Children and Adoption Act 2006 gives courts additional powers to facilitate contact and enforce contact orders. For instance, in addition to the current system of fines and imprisonment, they will be able to refer parents to a counsellor or a parenting programme or make enforcement orders imposing requirements for unpaid work. The courts will also be able to award financial compensation, for example where the cost of a holiday has been lost. These additional levers will be available to the courts in any contact case, if the court considers they would assist resolution. The Government brought the remaining provisions in Part 1 of the Children and Adoption Act (sections 1-5 and 8) relating to new powers for the courts to order 'contact activities' to assist people in resolving contact disputes and new enforcement powers on 8 December 2008.

The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) works with parents who have been unable to agree arrangements, to help them resolve their disputes, where it is safe to do so and in the child's best interests.
The Children and Adoption Act 2006 contains measures for the extension of the maximum duration of Family Assistance Orders from six months to 12 months which were implemented in October 2007. Beyond this, the Government plans to implement additional measures to enforce contact orders, including through the monitoring of court-ordered contact.
Denying a child contact with one of its parents is not usually in the child’s best interests, but it is for the courts to decide whether or not a child has suffered serious harm or is at risk of suffering serious harm, in the circumstances of each case.

Yours sincerely

Emma Hutchinson
Public Communications Unit
www.dcsf.gov.uk


Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0097256. To correspond by email with the Department for Children, Schools and Families please contact info@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk.
If you have any further queries why not browse our Popular Questions website. This site has been built to allow you to quickly find the answer to your question http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/popularquestions


The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Morris

Thank you for your email dated 16 November about child contact. On this occasion I have been asked to reply.

The Government believes that children benefit from a continuing relationship with both parents following divorce or separation, where it is safe and in the child’s best interests.
They may very well believe it but they do not enforce it!
The Children Act 1989 supports this and, most importantly, it makes the welfare of the child concerned, rather than the rights of the parents, its paramount consideration.
If this is true then how has the welfare issue shifted to the mother?
While most parents can and do resolve issues about contact and residence following separation or divorce,
Many do not and the blackmail begins.
the court becomes involved if either parent applies for an order for residence or contact.
Why do the parents need to apply for residence or contact?

The court has a wide discretion to take account of all the facts and circumstances of each individual case.
The courts need to butt out and not get involved.
Decisions are made after the judge has heard and considered all the evidence provided by both parties and any other witnesses,
Many witnesses are not allowed to give their information.
including experts.
Who needs these “So Called” experts? (If they were not required before)

Both parties are entitled to have their views heard and have the opportunity to respond to any evidence put before the court.
This is untrue and the judge will only allow what he sees fit.
If arrangements under a court order do not work out,
What do they mean If the don’t work out?
either parent may, according to the circumstances, apply to the court for the order to be varied, revoked, or enforced.
Apply all you want, the court will not enforce an order that you should need anyway.

We do not see any need to change this law,
There is no need to change the law they just need to enforce it!
but we do need to change the way parents settle disputes.
How are they going to do that?
In particular, we would like to see a reduction in the number of parents resorting to the courts,
If a mother is withholding the children, where else can a father go?
as this so often results in poorer outcomes for the children and greater dissatisfaction for the parents.
No surprise here then! How would a parent be dissatisfied if they “Owned” the children?
Where cases do come before the court, we are promoting extensive use of measures such as mediation
Mediate till the cows come home, the mother need not attend! Why should she?
and in-court conciliation to divert such cases from a full court hearing.
Why should a parent have to go to court to remain one?
Linked to this, we also want to provide a wider range of levers to ensure the proper implementation of court orders.
Implement all you like, it will make no difference! It is real enforcement that will help.
I realise there are cases where non-resident parents have difficulty
The word here should be “Impossible”
in maintaining contact with their children because of the obstructive behaviour of the parent with whom the children reside.
This happens quite simply because one parent is given “Ownership” of the children.
Where contact has been agreed or ordered by the courts, it is essential that it is adhered to.
Why did the involvement with your children stop in the first place? Just because the mother does not like you anymore?
If, at the end of a long and difficult dispute, the contact ordered by the court does not take place, then it has been a waste of time and energy
Ahh you forgot something quite important here.…..The Money it costs!
£300 per hour for a family solicitor……..£10-15K to get a court order.
but, more importantly, the child is not benefiting from what the court has decided will promote their welfare.
So why do they not do their job properly?
The enforcement of contact orders is a sensitive area.
It is only sensitive for the mother and the father receives no sensitivity!

Deliberate refusal to obey any court order is contempt of court that can be punished with a fine or imprisonment.
When is this ever going to happen?

The court also has the power to decide to transfer residence to the other (non-resident) parent if this is considered to be in the child’s best interests.
Again when is this going to happen?

However, penalties such as fines and imprisonment may not always be appropriate in a child contact case because of the effect that this may have on the children at the centre of the dispute.
What a cop out! This is a disgrace. So it is okay to shut out the father and all of the extended family. Is this appropriate?
The Children and Adoption Act 2006 gives courts additional powers to facilitate contact and enforce contact orders.
How?
For instance, in addition to the current system of fines and imprisonment, they will be able to refer parents to a counsellor or a parenting programme or make enforcement orders imposing requirements for unpaid work.
Refer the mother as much as you want, she need not attend or adhere as the government won’t enforce any measures!
The courts will also be able to award financial compensation, for example where the cost of a holiday has been lost.
I have lost lots of money due to paying for lost holidays, passports train tickets etc and how am I ever going to get this back?

These additional levers will be available to the courts in any contact case, if the court considers they would assist resolution.
They will not assist as they will not enforce anything against the mother.
The Government brought the remaining provisions in Part 1 of the Children and Adoption Act (sections 1-5 and 8) relating to new powers for the courts to order 'contact activities' to assist people in resolving contact disputes and new enforcement powers on 8 December 2008.

The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) works with parents
They work very much against the non-resident parent.
who have been unable to agree arrangements,
Who of sound mind would agree to losing their children?

to help them resolve their disputes, where it is safe to do so and in the child's best interests.
The records show that CAFCASS do not want to disobey the mother’s wishes!
The Children and Adoption Act 2006 contains measures for the extension of the maximum duration of Family Assistance Orders from six months to 12 months which were implemented in October 2007. Beyond this, the Government plans to implement additional measures to enforce contact orders, including through the monitoring of court-ordered contact.
Denying a child contact with one of its parents is not usually
Why do they use the word “Usually”? when they couldn’t care less if the children have a meaningful relationship with their father or not!
in the child’s best interests, but it is for the courts to decide whether or not a child has suffered serious harm or is at risk of suffering serious harm, in the circumstances of each case.
So let me get this right. The government want me to prove that my children are suffering serious harm or are at risk of it before I can continue to be a father to them!



Yours sincerely

Emma Hutchinson Public Communications Unit www.dcsf.gov.uk

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0097256. To correspond by email with the Department for Children, Schools and Families please contact info@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk.
If you have any further queries why not browse our Popular Questions website. This site has been built to allow you to quickly find the answer to your question http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/popularquestions