Strong Local Voice, Strong Local Champion

Fathers' Rights and Family Justice

Fathers' rights issues have been brought to the forefront of the political agenda only quite recently. In June 2004, the government introduced a consultation paper - Parental Separation: Children's Needs and Parents' Responsibilities, a report of the responses, and an agenda for action called 'Next Steps' was published in January 2005 and the draft Children (Contact) and Adoption Bill was published in February 2005. The Children and Adoption Bill, introduced since the General Election, which includes a focus on enforcement of contact orders, is now going through the House of Lords. All this shows some commitment to addressing the complaints of non-resident parents, who are mostly fathers, and who feel that the legal system as it stands is inadequate to meet the needs of particular contact cases. Such cases have been highlighted by Fathers4Justice, and the high profile achieved by this movement appears to have been a catalyst to jolt the government into taking steps to reform.

Two-thirds of those divorcing, and an unknown but substantial number of those who separate after living together, have children under 16. Family breakdown can have lasting emotional effects on all involved and has a substantial cost to the state. A 2003 report, 'The cost of family breakdown', found it to be around £15 billion. I believe that investment in preventative work which aims to strengthen relationships has an important role to play. It is children who are the most vulnerable during the process of changing the family base.

The majority of families do manage to keep separations amicable and forge custody arrangements outside of the courts. However, a minority of children experience acrimonious parental disputes and custody battles over contact and residence, which will affect their well-being. The negative effect on their well being can continue into adulthood.

The Liberal Democrats had concerns that the government published its agenda for action in 'Next Steps' before the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs published its report 'Family Justice: the operation of the family courts', which scrutinised a range of issues taking evidence from a broad selection of experts in the field. We feel that it was a missed opportunity that the government's 'Next Steps' document did not take on board the conclusions and recommendations made in the Select Committee report. Had it done so, the outcomes could be more effective and positive.

We also regret that there has been such a long delay between the consultation paper, Making Contact Work, which was issued by a sub-committee of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Board on Family Law in March 2001. Lack of earlier action has undoubtedly increased the frustration manifested in the father's rights lobby.

Primarily, Liberal Democrats have always believed that the interests of children in relation to residence and contact and other issues concerning their future should be paramount. That means prioritising the children's welfare over the interests of the parents, where there is a conflict.

The current family law system is often seen as being too adversarial in nature - doing little to help resolve situations, which are already heading for dispute. In addition, grandparents, for example, find it hard to be heard. For a system whose priority should be to work in the best interests of the child, the child's voice must be heard. Children should be given a greater opportunity to express their wishes during the custody process, as well as being better informed about what is going on. Crucially, Liberal Democrats believe that the emphasis needs to be about encouraging conciliation and finding common ground - to avoid the confrontational nature of the courts wherever possible.

In addition to encouraging pre-court mediation, existing informal and family support networks should be recognised and encouraged more. Wider kin networks, especially grandparents, can play an important part in supporting children and grandchildren around the time of separation. Our recent consultation paper on Children and Families addresses many of these points in more detail.

The Constitutional Affairs Select Committee' makes many useful and important conclusions and recommendations. Having earlier identified shortcomings in CAFCASS, it notably, and unsurprisingly, highlights the need for further investment in CAFCASS: "it is essential that the Government provides CAFCASS with sufficient resources to ensure the success of its new role. Government needs to define that role and set a timetable for implementation." Also, "CAFCASS will need enough caseworkers with the relevant skills to carry out this ambitious new work".

Now that these important issues are being addressed it is important that politicians achieve the right balance whilst retaining the principle of the child's welfare being paramount.